Tensions and conflict have defined the relationship between private taxi drivers and the taxi cartel groups in México City for decades, but was exacerbated with Uber’s arrival in 2013.
Uber and other ridesharing drivers have the Méxican Constitution on their side, which prohibits discrimination by individuals, businesses, states, and municipalities. Mexican laws are divided into hierarchical grades and applicability. The Constitution is the supreme law in México, followed by federal laws and regulations, international treaties approved by México in accordance with Mexican law, and then state codes and municipal regulations. Under the Constitution, if one company is authorized to supply transportation services to the airport, then it must be open to any other company. While bullying has been allowed to flourish in Mexico, the courts must follow the Constitution.
The Mexico City International Airport, Grupo Aeroportuario Marina, or the Ministry of Infrastructure, Communications, and Transportation cannot legally engage or use the National Guard to prevent the ridesharing services from operating. And they are already in violation by allowing only drivers from the eleven taxi groups to service the airport. The Mexican Constitution provides the right of all taxi and ride share drivers to serve the airport.
Special operations led by the National Guard have begun at México City International Airport (AICM) to target ride-hailing services, following an announcement by Grupo Aeroportuario Marina effective March 12, 2026. A recent court decision, in line with the Mexican Constitution, allowed Uber drivers to operate at airports without being detained by federal authorities, highlighting the regulatory debate over ride-hailing services in federally controlled airport zones.
The dispute over app-based airport rides in México intensified after AICM confirmed the deployment of National Guard operations to address what authorities describe as “irregular transportation services”. Uber claims that a federal judicial order protects its drivers from being penalized solely for using the platform, but the Ministry of Infrastructure, Communications, and Transportation (SICT) says this does not grant Uber drivers permission to operate in federal zones such as airports. AICM also announced on X that starting March 12, National Guard operations will be reinforced under the coordination of Grupo Aeroportuario Marina. The stated objective is to inhibit irregular ground transportation and enhance safety in accordance with the legal framework.
This announcement followed a March 10 meeting between Grupo Aeroportuario Marina and the eleven taxi groups authorized at AICM. The airport operator indicated that new measures include initiating National Guard operations, relocating taxi staging areas and sales points, and reiterating that app-based taxis are not authorized within the airport’s federal zone, all despite the court ruling against the group’s efforts to restrict the service to those from whom they collect a fee.
On March 11, Uber issued an official statement on its México blog, asserting that Federal Judge Blanca Lilia Ochoa, the Thirteenth District Judge in Administrative Matters (Jueza Decimotercera de Distrito en Materia Administrativa), granted a definitive suspension under Stay of Proceedings 1202/2025 (juicio de amparo 1202/2025). The definitive suspension prevents the National Guard and federal authorities from detaining or fining Uber drivers who pick up or drop off passengers at over 70 airports nationwide, including the AIFA.
However, practical enforcement may still vary, as airport authorities have maintained that ride-hailing services are not officially authorized at the airport. This means users or drivers could still encounter issues due to ongoing legal uncertainty.
The federal government rejected Uber’s interpretation in the SICT’s “Uber Informational Note” published March 11. The ministry stated that Uber does not have authorization to provide service within the AICM perimeter or at other airports in the country; it argued that the judicial measure cited by the company does not constitute an operating permit. In practice, the government’s position is that the ruling may protect against arbitrary enforcement, but it does not legalize ride-hailing platforms. This distinction is now central to the conflict.
In plain terms, Uber argues that the judicial suspension means drivers should not be punished simply for using the app, emphasizing the right to fair treatment, legal certainty, and non-discrimination for both drivers and passengers. On the other hand, government authorities contend that only authorized providers can legally operate at AICM and other airports, regardless of court suspensions, and that Uber’s judicial protection does not give the company permission to offer rides at the airport. This side-by-side disagreement sits at the heart of the ongoing dispute, with Uber focusing on procedural protection for its drivers and the government maintaining regulatory control over airport ground transportation.
AICM’s measures followed direct engagement with concessioned taxi groups, highlighting ongoing tensions between incumbent airport operators and digital mobility platforms regarding access to one of México’s most significant transport hubs. As the country approaches the 2026 FIFA World Cup, this issue is likely to receive increased attention due to anticipated growth in airport passenger traffic and heightened scrutiny of ground transportation options for international visitors. Looking ahead, several scenarios are possible: authorities and ride-hailing companies could pursue further legal action to clarify the regulatory landscape; new policy adjustments may emerge as authorities and mobility platforms seek to navigate legal ambiguities; or negotiations might be initiated to reach a compromise that enables regulated app-based services within airport zones. The trajectory of this dispute will shape not only transport access at AICM, but also broader questions about mobility regulation across México.
One thing that México cannot easily change is the anti-discrimination clause of the Constitution, which is enshrined in Article 1. Article 1 of the Mexican Constitution explicitly prohibits any form of discrimination based on ethnic or national origin, gender, age, disabilities, social status, health conditions, religion, opinions, sexual preferences, marital status, or any other form that violates human dignity and seeks to annul or diminish the rights and freedoms of individuals. This foundational legal principle ensures that all persons and entities—public and private—are required to act without discrimination, making it a cornerstone in the legal debates over access and equal treatment in contexts like airport transportation.
Any attempts at discrimination by individuals will very likely hamper future hosting of the FIFA World Cup and other international offerings. México is walking along a very thin line balancing between doing right by all concerned and allowing the bullying of politicians and private businesses to prevail over the rights of the people.
