On July 7, 2026, Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) ruled unanimously in favor of Abelina López Rodríguez, the former mayor of Acapulco, Guerrero, invalidating a local audit that accused her of mismanaging 898 million pesos in federal funds.

The controversy dates back to May 2025, when the Acapulco city government filed a constitutional challenge against the Guerrero State Auditor’s Office. This challenge came after the local auditor issued a report alleging a probable financial damage due to López Rodríguez’s failure to account for the use of nearly 900 million pesos received in 2023 from federal contributions. The report included ten administrative responsibility claims and a list of observations against the former mayor.

López Rodríguez, affiliated with Morena, argued that the local audit infringed on the municipality’s financial autonomy and that only the federal auditing body—the Auditoría Superior de la Federación (ASF)—has jurisdiction over federal funds. The Guerrero auditor’s office, however, maintained it has the authority to review municipal finances and resource management.

The SCJN’s minister Arístides Guerrero García, who presented the ruling, emphasized that funds delivered through federal channels retain their federal nature, meaning local auditors cannot legally review their use. This decision effectively nullifies the Guerrero Auditor’s report against López Rodríguez, who had requested leave from her mayoral position to pursue a gubernatorial candidacy.

This ruling highlights ongoing tensions between state and federal oversight in Mexico’s fiscal governance. For residents and migrants in Mexico, it underscores the complexity of transparency and accountability in public spending—especially when federal resources are involved. It also raises questions about how local governments can balance autonomy with the need for rigorous oversight, a key issue for inclusive and equitable public policy.

As Puebla moves forward with projects like the cablebús, which rely on federal and local coordination, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of clear jurisdictional boundaries to ensure efficient and transparent use of public funds.