"Therefore, this collegiate body determines that the article mentioned above does not violate the principles of exclusive regulation by Congress and hierarchical subordination, based on the following considerations.
On the one hand, this provision reiterates the provisions of the LGCT regarding where designated smoking areas should be located. On the other hand, it elaborates on how activities will be carried out in these areas, detailing the prohibition of various activities other than smoking. In this regard, it specifies a general limitation expressly contemplated in Article 27 of the LGCT. Consequently, Article 60, paragraph 1, of the RLGCT does not address any new issue because it is an obvious, clear restriction that is previously established by general and abstract law."
The Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) resolved a conflict between two federal collegiate courts concerning the constitutionality of several provisions of Article 60 of the Regulations to the General Law for Tobacco Control (RLGCT). The provisions at issue require smoking-only areas to be located in open-air spaces and prohibit the service and consumption of food or drink in these spaces. The dispute focused on whether these regulatory provisions violated the principles of statutory reservation and hierarchical subordination by allegedly imposing restrictions beyond those established in the General Law for Tobacco Control (LGCT).
The SCJN held that the challenged provisions are constitutionally valid. It concluded that Article 60 of the RLGCT does not introduce new restrictions but instead develops and operationalizes the legislative framework established in Article 27 of the LGCT with respect to designated smoking areas. Accordingly, the Court determined that the regulation lawfully specifies the characteristics, location, and functional limitations of smoking-only areas as a legitimate exercise of the Executive’s regulatory authority.