An unnamed company, whose corporate purpose is "to import, export, buy, sell, manufacture, trade, transport, ship, distribute, deposit, store and negotiate in any way all kinds of: (i) Tobacco, cigars, cigarettes, filters and tobacco products (...)", filed an amparo against the Presidential Decree Prohibiting the Circulation and Commercialization of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS), Electronic Non-Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENNDS), Alternative Nicotine Delivery Systems, Electronic Cigarettes and Vaporizer Devices with Similar Uses, as well as the Solutions and Mixtures Used in Such Systems published on May 31, 2022.

The company put forth many arguments, including that the President did not have the competence to issue the decree, and that the decree violated the right to equality and non-discrimination; lacked foundation and motivation; violated the principle of legal certainty, typicality, the right to equality and non-discrimination; and was disproportionate to the fundamental rights of free trade and the free development of the personality. The company also argued that there are more effective measures to protect public health and that the decree deprived people of a reduced-risk alternative to conventional products.

The Court considered that the decree followed the same rationale as Article 16(VI) of the General Law on Tobacco Control declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (Jurisprudence P./J. 3/2022 (11a.)): it seeks to justify an absolute ban on the circulation and commercialization of these products within the Republic. Ultimately, the amparo was granted on the grounds that the challenged decree is not a necessary measure and would not pass a proportionality test.