# Mexico eSIM: SIM Registry Struck Down by Supreme Court

Source: https://esimrules.com/destinations/mexico/
Author: Nadezhda Semenova — Entrepreneur, co-founder of the travel service Trippy (https://esimrules.com/about/)
Updated: 2026-09-12

> A Mexico eSIM: Chorro Fon roams on Movistar at 4G only, no 5G. The SCJN voided PANAUT on 26 April 2022, case 82/2021. Checked 15 August 2026.

## Does this apply to you? (the registry exists on paper nowhere)

Mexico’s SIM registry, PANAUT, does not apply to anyone today. Mexico’s Supreme Court struck it down in full on 26 April 2022, case Acción de inconstitucionalidad 82/2021 y su acumulada 86/2021. The registry had been on the books from its publication on 16 April 2021 to that ruling. That is 375 days, twelve months and ten days.

That registry reached local subscriptions: a line you buy inside Mexico, from a Mexican carrier, under Mexican law. That is the population it was built to hold, and it is not you if you are activating an Airalo profile on landing. The duty ran to Mexican concessionaires and the users of the lines they issued (articles 180 Quáter and 180 Quintes of the decree). A roaming eSIM for Mexico has neither — no Mexican number, no Mexican carrier contract.

So on our reading of those two articles, a roaming eSIM sat outside the registry’s reach even while the registry stood in law. That is our reading, not a holding: the Court was never asked about roaming profiles and did not address them. It no longer decides anything either way, because the registry is void.

## Mexico built a SIM registry, then the Supreme Court struck it down

Mexico built PANAUT, its national SIM registry, by decree on 16 April 2021, and the Supreme Court struck the whole regulatory system down on 26 April 2022 — case 82/2021 y su acumulada 86/2021. The registry stood for exactly 375 days.

Mexico published the decree that created the registry on 16 April 2021. Its name was PANAUT, short for Padrón Nacional de Usuarios de Telefonía Móvil. The decree amended Mexico’s federal telecommunications law, the Ley Federal de Telecomunicaciones y Radiodifusión. The new rule was simple to state, hard to meet: every mobile line’s owner had to hand biometric data to a national database. Which biometrics, the decree did not say. Article 180 Ter, fraction VI, left that to guidelines the telecom regulator, the IFT, would issue later.

INAI, Mexico’s data-protection authority, challenged the decree that same year. A group of senators from the LXIV legislature joined the challenge. They filed an acción de inconstitucionalidad, a direct constitutional challenge under Mexican procedure, not an ordinary lawsuit. The case reached the Tribunal Pleno of the Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación as two consolidated files, 82/2021 and 86/2021. Minister Norma Lucía Piña Hernández wrote the ruling.

The Court decided on 26 April 2022. Its own dating reads “veintiséis de abril de dos mil veintidós.” The second resolutive point states the outcome directly:

> “Se declara la invalidez de la totalidad del sistema normativo que integra el Decreto de reformas a la Ley Federal de Telecomunicaciones y Radiodifusión publicado en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el dieciséis de abril de dos mil veintiuno, específicamente, de la fracción XLII bis del artículo 15, y los artículos 180 Bis, 180 Ter, 180 Quáter, 180 Quintes, 180 Sextus, 180 Septimus, 307 Bis, 307 Ter, 307 Quáter, y 307 Quintus, así como los transitorios primero, segundo, tercero, cuarto, quinto y sexto, adicionados a la Ley Federal de Telecomunicaciones y Radiodifusión; así como la invalidez de las porciones normativas “, el Padrón Nacional de Usuarios de Telefonía Móvil” del artículo 176, “, y realizar el aviso correspondiente en el Padrón Nacional de Usuarios de Telefonía Móvil” de la fracción VI del artículo 190, “, y proceder a realizar el aviso correspondiente en el Padrón Nacional de Usuarios de Telefonía Móvil;” y “el Instituto para efectos del Padrón Nacional de Usuarios de Telefonía Móvil o” de la fracción VII del artículo 190, reformados mediante dicho Decreto.”

> Translation: “The invalidity of the entirety of the regulatory system comprising the Decree amending the Federal Telecommunications and Broadcasting Law, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on 16 April 2021, is declared: specifically, fraction XLII bis of article 15, and articles 180 Bis, 180 Ter, 180 Quáter, 180 Quintes, 180 Sextus, 180 Septimus, 307 Bis, 307 Ter, 307 Quáter, and 307 Quintus, as well as the first through sixth transitory articles, added to the Federal Telecommunications and Broadcasting Law; as well as the invalidity of the normative portions '…the National Registry of Mobile Telephony Users' of article 176, '…and to give the corresponding notice to the National Registry of Mobile Telephony Users' of fraction VI of article 190, '…and to proceed to give the corresponding notice to the National Registry of Mobile Telephony Users;' and 'the Institute for purposes of the National Registry of Mobile Telephony Users or' of fraction VII of article 190, as reformed by that Decree.” (Point SEGUNDO, decided 26 April 2022)

That single sentence does two things. It voids one fraction, ten added articles and six transitory articles outright. It also cuts four named PANAUT phrases out of articles 176 and 190, the two the decree only amended. Paragraphs 429-430 explain why: those two were the only reformed, not added, provisions, and both cover Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones powers unrelated to PANAUT. Voiding them wholesale would have left a regulatory gap in the IFT’s own authority. So the Court removed only the PANAUT portions — one in article 176, three in article 190 — and left the rest of both standing.

Why call this “la totalidad del sistema normativo,” the totality of the regulatory system, over a named list? Paragraphs 424-425 answer it: the decree is one design built around collecting phone users' data; strip that core out and the rest “pierde su razón de ser” — loses its reason to exist. Totality and named list aren’t in tension. The list is the totality; nothing beyond that decree is touched.

Point TERCERO sets the effective date at notification of the resolutive points to the Congreso de la Unión, per considerando octavo — a procedural trigger, not a calendar date. Point CUARTO orders publication in the Diario Oficial de la Federación and the Semanario Judicial de la Federación.

Georgia is the other kind of case. Its telecom regulator, ComCom, doesn’t mention [device registration](/rules/imei-registration-countries/) anywhere on its site. That’s an absence of evidence, not a repealed rule. Mexico is different. Here, a rule existed on paper for 375 days, publication to ruling. A court order says exactly when it stopped, with a case number and a date attached.

The difference should matter to you before you pack. A rule nobody can find may still exist, undocumented, and surface at a counter. A rule a constitutional court has struck down cannot return without a fresh law and a fresh publication date, both of which would be public.

## Why the court said no: PANAUT passed two tests and failed the third

PANAUT cleared two of Mexico’s four proportionality tests, failed the third, and never reached the fourth. Failing any one of the four voids the law (¶113). The Court held the registry’s anti-crime purpose constitutionally valid (¶264, ¶266) and the measure itself suitable for that purpose (¶275, ¶279). It struck the decree down on necessity alone (¶383, ¶391, ¶392): Mexican law already gave investigators tools just as effective and far less invasive.

Read elsewhere that the registry fell for being useless or unproven? That is the losing side’s argument, not the ruling.

### Purpose: passed

PANAUT’s purpose passed the first proportionality test: the Court held that fighting crimes like extortion is a legitimate aim for the registry (¶264, restated ¶266). INAI and the challenging senators lost this point outright — the case turned on necessity instead.

Whether PANAUT could legitimately aim at cutting crimes like extortion was, in the Court’s words, a question that “debe contestarse en sentido afirmativo” — “must be answered in the affirmative” (¶264). Paragraph 266 restates it: creating and regulating PANAUT does pursue a valid, legitimate aim. INAI and the challenging senators lost this point outright.

### Suitability: passed

The Court found the registry could help identify people who use a phone to commit crimes. So “la medida legislativa satisface esta segunda grada de la prueba de proporcionalidad” — “the legislative measure satisfies this second step of the proportionality test” (¶275; idónea, ¶279). INAI’s complaint argued the opposite: legislators themselves had cited no solid evidence tying this kind of registry to fewer extortion and kidnapping cases (¶276).

It added a sharper claim: PANAUT chased the wrong subscribers. “No tiene sentido recabar los datos de las líneas pospago cuando la inmensa mayoría de delitos se cometen a través de líneas prepago” — “it makes no sense to collect data on postpaid lines when most crimes run through prepaid lines.” The Court rejected the whole line of argument. Paragraph 277: “no asiste la razón a dicho Instituto” — “the Institute is not right on this.” A suitability test under ordinary scrutiny asks only whether some instrumental link exists between the measure and a valid aim. It doesn’t ask whether the measure is the best or fully effective one available. PANAUT had that link.

### Necessity: failed — and this is the actual reason PANAUT is gone

PANAUT failed on necessity, not purpose or suitability: Mexican law already gave investigators equally effective tools — judicially authorized interception, real-time geolocation, subscriber lookup — making a new biometric registry unnecessary (¶383, ¶391). That single failure is why the Court voided PANAUT.

Paragraph 383: the decree “no supera esta tercera grada de la prueba” — “does not clear this third step of the test.” Paragraphs 384-389 explain why. Mexico’s Ley Federal de Telecomunicaciones and its Código Nacional de Procedimientos Penales already let investigators intercept private communications, pull a phone’s real-time geolocation, and obtain a subscriber’s name and address. The ruling calls these tools “igualmente idóneos,” equally suitable — and, unlike PANAUT, they require a judge’s authorization. They also end. Paragraph 388 notes the decree sets no limit at all on how long the state may keep the data. Paragraph 391: PANAUT “no resulta una medida legislativa necesaria para una sociedad democrática” — “is not a legislative measure necessary for a democratic society.” Purpose and suitability were never the problem. A less invasive, judicially supervised alternative already existed in Mexican law, and that made PANAUT unnecessary.

PANAUT touches biometric data, and that raised the standard. At ¶148 the Court sets out what counts as sensitive personal data. On that list, beside health data and genetic data, sit “los datos biométricos dirigidos a identificar de manera unívoca a una persona física” — biometric data aimed at identifying a person uniquely — and “el origen racial o étnico”, racial or ethnic origin. Because sensitive data was in play, the reinforced, strict-scrutiny standard applied to part of the case (¶396). The Court didn’t need to run that analysis separately. A measure that fails ordinary proportionality cannot survive the stricter version either (¶402). The finding rests on the necessity failure above.

The Court closed the case without ruling on INAI’s remaining arguments, including a claim that PANAUT would automatically attribute a registered device’s actions to its owner. Paragraph 426: once the decree fell on necessity, studying the rest became unnecessary.

## What you get: Chorro Fon on Movistar, 4G, data-only

Chorro Fon, Airalo’s eSIM for Mexico, roams on Movistar. It runs at 4G only. No 5G tier exists in the catalog at all. Planning heavy tethering, or a call that needs your phone’s fastest connection? This profile’s ceiling is Movistar’s 4G network, regardless of what your handset itself can reach.

| Data | Duration | Price |
|---|---|---|

Airalo lists its own rate separately on its site.

The install window runs 365 days from purchase. That’s the install deadline, not a usage clock. The data validity period starts only once your phone makes its first connection to a Mexican network after landing, not at checkout and not at installation (Airalo catalog data, checked 15 August 2026). The plan tops up within that window. Checkout asks for no KYC step and no ID upload, consistent with a roaming profile that sat outside PANAUT even while PANAUT existed. APN configures itself automatically on both iOS and Android. No manual entry is needed here, unlike some other destinations in this catalog.

## Before you fly, and on landing

**Install the profile before you leave, on a working Wi-Fi connection.** Not at the airport gate. The QR code or install link needs internet to complete, and an airport connection on landing in Mexico isn’t guaranteed. The 365-day install window means buying weeks ahead costs nothing.

Nothing activates at install. A profile that shows installed but inactive before you board is expected. It’s not a fault.

On landing, switch on data roaming for the Chorro Fon line specifically. Running it alongside a home SIM works on any dual-SIM phone. Set Chorro Fon as your data line. Turn off cellular data, not the whole line, on your home SIM. That keeps an expensive home-carrier roaming charge from triggering by accident.

A Chorro Fon profile carries no Mexican phone number, no SMS, and no calling minutes. Anything that verifies you by SMS to a Mexican number sits outside what a data-only profile does. Think a delivery app, a local bank’s one-time code, a loyalty sign-up. Set those up on your home number before you fly, if you’ll need them at all.

## FAQ

## Sources and freshness

*This page is checked against the Supreme Court’s own ruling, read directly: Acción de inconstitucionalidad 82/2021 y su acumulada 86/2021, Tribunal Pleno of the Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, decided 26 April 2022. Retrieved via Scrapfly (country=mx) and read in full on 15 August 2026 (source file: www2.scjn.gob.mx/juridica/engroses/3/2021/19/3\_283367\_6153\_firmado.pdf). The Court’s press release page returns a 403 behind Incapsula protection. This page relies on the ruling’s own text, not a press summary of it.*

*Three things this page has not verified. The exact Diario Oficial de la Federación publication date and text of the ruling itself, separate from the decree it struck down — point CUARTO orders that publication, but this page has not seen it. Any telecommunications reform passed in Mexico after 26 April 2022: we checked this one ruling, not the years since. And the prepaid-line policies each Mexican carrier sets on its own, Telcel, Movistar and AT&T included, which are contractual terms, not law. Product details, network, data speed, package structure and pricing, come from Airalo’s own catalog, checked 15 August 2026, and can change on Airalo’s side without notice.*

> *Sources cited only — expert review pending. For individualized advice, consult a licensed professional.*

## FAQ

Do I need to register my SIM when I arrive in Mexico?
No. Mexico had a national SIM registry, PANAUT, but Mexico’s Supreme Court struck it down in full on 26 April 2022 (Acción de inconstitucionalidad 82/2021 y su acumulada 86/2021). No registration duty exists today. A roaming eSIM for Mexico, like Chorro Fon, was never inside that registry’s reach in any case, even during the 375 days it was on the books.

Did Mexico ever require SIM registration?
Yes, for 375 days — twelve months and ten days. The decree creating PANAUT was published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación on 16 April 2021. The Supreme Court declared it invalid on 26 April 2022. Saying registration “never existed” in Mexico would be wrong. It existed, then a court ended it.

What was PANAUT, and why was it created?
PANAUT, the Padrón Nacional de Usuarios de Telefonía Móvil, was a national registry. It required every Mexican mobile line’s owner to submit biometric data, fingerprints included, to a federal database. The decree creating it, published 16 April 2021, framed it as a tool against crimes like extortion. The Supreme Court agreed that purpose was legitimate and the registry itself suitable for it (¶264, ¶275) — then struck it down anyway, because Mexican law already gave investigators equally effective, less invasive tools (¶383-391).

Why did the Supreme Court strike down Mexico’s SIM registry?
On one ground: necessity, not lack of evidence. The Court found PANAUT’s anti-crime purpose valid (¶264) and the measure itself suitable (¶275, ¶279) — it rejected INAI’s argument that no evidence tied the registry to lower crime (¶277: “no asiste la razón a dicho Instituto”). PANAUT failed only because Mexican law already gave investigators equally effective tools — judicially authorised interception, real-time geolocation — without PANAUT’s blanket collection and unlimited data retention (¶383-391).

Does a roaming eSIM in Mexico need ID or KYC?
No. Chorro Fon’s Airalo checkout asks for no ID upload and no KYC step (Airalo catalog data, checked 15 August 2026). PANAUT’s identity checks, while the registry existed, targeted local subscriptions issued by Mexican carriers. That’s a different transaction from a roaming profile bought before you land.

What network does the Mexico eSIM use, and does it support 5G?
Chorro Fon roams on Movistar, and only at 4G. No 5G tier is in the catalog (Airalo catalog data, checked 15 August 2026). That holds regardless of whether your own phone supports 5G.

Did the ruling strike down Mexico’s telecommunications law as a whole?
No. Point SEGUNDO names a specific list: fraction XLII bis of article 15, articles 180 Bis through 307 Quintus, six transitory articles, plus four PANAUT phrases cut out of articles 176 and 190. The ruling calls this “la totalidad del sistema normativo” because those provisions form one design — remove the data-collection core and the rest “pierde su razón de ser”, loses its reason to exist (¶424-425). It is not the Federal Telecommunications and Broadcasting Law as a whole; everything else in that law stands untouched.

Could Mexico introduce a new SIM registration rule later?
We don’t know, and we’re not claiming to. This page checked one document: the Supreme Court’s 26 April 2022 ruling striking down PANAUT. We have not tracked any telecommunications reform passed since that date. If Mexico’s Congress moves on this again, this page does not yet reflect it.