Supreme Court reacts to legislative abuses and signals support for the defense of Italian citizenship

Two decisions this week reinforce the message that the Italian justice system is vigilant against rules that could restrict fundamental rights — an important signal for those fighting for jus sanguinis, the recognition of Italian citizenship by descent.

On one hand, the Supreme Court, the country's Supreme Court, released this Thursday (27) a 129-page report that questions the validity of the Security decree, approved by the government. The text points out serious constitutional flaws, such as the lack of real urgency to justify the decree, abuse of criminal norms and inclusion of rules without thematic coherence.

ADVERTISING

🔴 Supreme Court • May 2026

Standing in line at the consulate doesn't erase your right to citizenship.

The Italian Supreme Court has confirmed that a consular blockade is legal grounds for legal action.

• Were you unable to schedule an appointment at the consulate?
• Is the process stalled or poorly managed?
• Maternal lineage?
• Incomplete documentation?

See if there is still a solution.

“Doubts about constitutionality in its merits and method, lack of urgency requirements,” the Court said about the Security decree. These same points — lack of urgency and constitutional basis — are precisely the arguments used against the Decree-Law 36, known as Tajani Decree, which changed the rules of Italian citizenship.

Although it does not deal with immigration or citizenship, the Cassazione opinion shows that the Judiciary does not accept laws approved without a solid basis or that threaten individual guarantees.

In parallel, in the same week, the Turin Court sent to Constitutional Court um questioning about the new Law 74/2025which restricts the recognition of Italian citizenship to applications filed until March 27, 2025. The action was brought by associations such as AGIS. (Association of the Righteous Iure Sanguinis) together with AUCI (Avvocati Uniti per la Cittadinanza Italiana), claims that the rule violates acquired rights and constitutional principles such as equality and legal certainty.

Judge Fabrizio Alessandria considered the arguments consistent and ordered the suspension of the case until the Court's final decision. For thousands of descendants of Italians, the measure is an important breath of fresh air against restrictions seen as unfair.

Even without a direct connection between the two cases, the message is clear: the Supreme Court and the courts remain alert to possible legislative excesses — whether in criminal matters or in citizenship rights.

When politicians fail, the law is there to correct their excesses.