On Tuesday, June 24, 2025, the Constitutional Court of Italy held a public hearing that could mark a turning point in legislation regarding Italian citizenship by descent. The trial, held in Rome, stemmed from a referral from the Bologna Court, published on November 26, 2024, which questioned the constitutionality of Article 1 of Law No. 91/1992, the law that until now recognizes Italian citizenship by descent. jus sanguinis, that is, by blood, without temporal limitation of generations.
Other courts — such as those of Rome, Milan and Florence — also interrupted similar processes, awaiting a definitive position from the Constitutional Court.
The Court is analyzing whether this legal provision remains compatible with the principles of the Constitution of the Italian Republic, especially after the enactment of Law 74/2025, which converted the controversial Decree-Law No. 36/2025 – known as the Tajani Decree – and imposed new criteria for the recognition of citizenship. The law now requires, for example, that the applicant be the grandchild of an Italian citizen and prove exclusive blood ties or birth in Italy.
A historic hearing
With the plenary hall packed with students, legal professionals, and members of the press, the hearing had an intense and symbolic atmosphere, reflecting the heated debate surrounding the topic. For the first time, Italy's highest constitutional court addressed the potential generational limitation of Italian citizenship by descent, an issue that directly affects millions of descendants of Italians around the world, especially in the Americas.
The reporting judge, Emanuela Navarretta, presented a technical report containing a summary of the issues submitted and then the qualified lawyers — including Marco Mellone, Antonio Cattaneo, Diego Corapi, Giovanni Bonato, Monica Restanio and Patrizio Ivo D'Andrea — had space to make their oral arguments.
Attorney Mellone was the first to speak. Representing the appellants in four separate cases, he delivered a defense with a strong emotional and historical charge.
“We are here, President, to save the State from its own administrative inefficiency. If the law has always provided for citizenship by blood, it cannot be said today that it is unconstitutional just because the State failed to apply it,” he declared, addressing the Court directly.
Melone criticized the recent legislation for attempting, according to him, to correct an alleged legal gap through arbitrary and retroactive criteria, even affecting acquired rights of citizens recognized by the courts. He also argued that Parliament, by intervening in the midst of the constitutional process, sought to legitimize an administrative act under the guise of a general rule.
“The new law has a disguised retroactive effect and only aims to affect descendants of emigrants who have always been protected by clear rules, valid for more than 160 years,” he said.
Case law and technical arguments
The second to speak was lawyer Antonio Cattaneo, who brought a strictly technical analysis to the hearing. He cited precedents from the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court itself, especially ruling no. 30/1983, which extended the recognition of citizenship to the maternal line.
“Citizenship is not restricted to physical presence in national territory. It is a cultural, historical and legal link with the Italian people, inside and outside Italy,” he said, highlighting that excluding descendants of Italians just because they live abroad would be denying the national history itself.
According to Cattaneo, the Italian Constitution has never provided for limitations on the generation or residence of descendants. He stated that the new law introduces a discriminatory criterion that ignores the legitimate right of citizens to trust, offends the principle of non-retroactivity and violates Article 3 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.
Direct impact on ongoing processes
Thousands of cases are currently pending in Italy’s civil courts, many of which were initiated before the new rule. Depending on the Constitutional Court’s decision, the ruling could either consolidate the new legal criterion or set a precedent for its annulment or modulation.
If the Court declares the new law incompatible with the Constitution, the restrictions introduced by the Tajani Decree may be annulled. On the other hand, if it considers the limitation legitimate, there will be an unprecedented legal framework restricting a right that until then was considered permanent and imprescriptible.
Italian community abroad mobilized
The hearing also had a symbolic character. The presence of representatives of the Italian community abroad – especially from South America – was highlighted as an expression of the relevance of the topic for millions of people. Currently, there are around 6 million Italians living outside Italy, half of whom were born on Italian soil.
President Sergio Mattarella, in a recent speech to the General Council of Italians Abroad, recalled that the history of migration is an essential part of national identity. He called for recent legislation to be “meditated”, in an indirect reference to the Tajani Decree.
Next Steps
The Court has not yet announced a date for its decision. It is expected that there will be a detailed analysis of both the technical aspects and the social impact of the new legislation.
Regardless of the outcome, the hearing on 24 June 2025 will go down in history as the moment when the Italian State had to confront its legislative choices before its Constitutional Court in the face of its own national identity.
The lawyers gave a true lesson in Constitution and law when defending the jus sanguinis before the Court. What can be said with certainty is that the Italian community abroad was well represented and amply defended.
FOLLOW-US
