The minimum content of the right to mobility as a fundamental right

The Constitution expressly recognizes that every person has the right to mobility “under conditions of road safety, accessibility, efficiency, sustainability, quality, inclusion, and equality.” It constitutionalizes a minimum standard of service provision, a duty of organization, and a benchmark for evaluating transportation as a central component of social life.

The right to mobility is established in the twenty-first paragraph of Article 4 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. See below: Article 4.- (…) Every person has the right to mobility under conditions of road safety, accessibility, efficiency, sustainability, quality, inclusion, and equality.

The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation established, through jurisprudence 2a./J. 71/2023 (11th Epoch), that the right to mobility has enforceable content on three levels:

• Service provision level (effective access): the abstract possibility of moving is not sufficient; the State must ensure real conditions so that transportation is possible and functional, especially through public transportation.
• Quality and safety level: constitutional mobility does not tolerate degraded or dysfunctional service as an administrative norm; the explicit reference to quality and road safety requires public management that coherently links fares, standards, and supervision.
• Equality and non-discrimination level: accessibility and inclusion imply that tariff and operational decisions cannot be adopted as if they were neutral; a fare set without proper justification may result in material exclusion (due to unjustified increases) or operational collapse (due to insufficiency), disproportionately affecting those who depend on the service.

It is important to highlight the analysis carried out by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation when resolving Amparo on Review 686/2022, regarding the minimum content of the right to mobility.

The former Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has analyzed that the right to mobility is closely linked to accessibility, to the extent that it cannot be understood in isolation. Its evolution stems from international references such as the World Charter for the Right to the City, continues through its development in local constitutions and laws, and culminates with its incorporation into Article 4 of the Federal Constitution. From this perspective, the SCJN establishes that mobility is not limited to simple movement, but rather entails the State’s obligation to build a transportation and infrastructure system that places people at the center, especially those in situations of greater vulnerability.

Furthermore, the decision in the Amparo on Review shows that mobility has a dual dimension: individual, because it protects each person’s ability to decide how to move; and collective, because it requires the coexistence of various forms of mobility that respond to the needs of the population as a whole. In turn, it also has an instrumental and a subjective perspective: instrumental, because it directly impacts people’s material well-being based on physical accessibility, cost, travel times, connectivity, and safety; and subjective, because it influences quality of life by enabling access to rest, culture, recreation, and the development of social bonds. Therefore, a deficient or exclusionary mobility system not only makes travel more difficult, but also reduces daily well-being and limits the effective enjoyment of rights.

Finally, the Second Chamber makes it clear that the right to mobility operates as an indispensable prerequisite for the exercise of other fundamental rights, such as work, education, health, housing, food, culture, and recreation. Therefore, its constitutional content requires authorities to ensure a mobility system that is safe, accessible, efficient, sustainable, high-quality, inclusive, and equitable. Each of these elements imposes specific duties of prevention, adaptation, maintenance, planning, and removal of barriers, so that mobility is not a privilege for a few, but a real and effective condition enabling all people to develop their life projects with dignity and equality.

In sum, the right to mobility, as a fundamental right recognized in Article 4 of the Constitution, is not limited to the mere possibility of movement, but requires real conditions of road safety, accessibility, efficiency, sustainability, quality, inclusion, and equality. Its minimum content imposes on authorities a concrete duty of organization, provision, and supervision of the mobility system, under verifiable constitutional standards. Viewed in this way, mobility not only constitutes an autonomous right, but also a material condition for the effective exercise of other rights, since its guarantee largely determines people’s access to a dignified life, to public space, and to full development within society.