March 11 Constitutional Court Hearing: What Happened, What It Means, and What Comes Next

On March 11, 2026, Italy’s Constitutional Court (Corte Constituzionale) held its first major hearing on the constitutional challenges to Law 74/2025 (the "Tajani Decree"). This law introduced unexpected, retroactive limits on the recognition of Italian citizenship by descent (jure sanguinis).

The next day, the Court issued a short press release stating that some of the issues raised by the Turin tribunal were considered not well-founded, while others were deemed inadmissible. Importantly, this was not the full judgment - the Court has not yet published the detailed reasoning behind its conclusions.  

This hearing represents an important step, but it is far from the final word. Several major challenges are still pending, many of which raise broader constitutional questions that the Court did not address in this first round. 

What Was the March 11 Hearing About? 

The Constitutional Court reviewed a referral from the Tribunal of Turin, which questioned whether specific portions of Law 74/2025 are constitutional — especially those that:  

• apply retroactively, 

• create different outcomes based solely on the date an application was filed, and 

• deem certain people “never to have acquired” Italian citizenship, even though they would have been considered Italians from birth under more than a century of previous law. 

The applicants in the underlying case filed their judicial petition on March 28, 2025 — one day after the law’s surprise cutoff. 

The referral challenged only:  

• the retroactive language (“even before the date of entry into force”), and 

• the new filing deadlines (letters a, a-bis, b). 

   

It did not challenge the entire law. 

Interpreting the Court’s Press Release 

The Court issued only a brief press release, not a full judgment. The detailed written decision — which will explain why the Court reached its conclusions - is still pending.  

The Court indicated that:  

• some of Turin’s challenges were not well founded, 

• others were inadmissible (meaning the Court did not examine them at all), 

• the new law functions as a derogation from the previously unlimited jure sanguinis system, which continues to be recognized in Italian law  

   

Why “not well-founded” vs. “inadmissible” matters  

• Not well-founded: the Court examined the argument and disagreed with it. 

• Inadmissible: the Court did not examine the question because of how it was framed. Inadmissible questions remain entirely unresolved. 

In neither case has the Court said that Law 74/2025 is constitutional. It has only decided that these specific arguments, framed in this specific way, did not succeed. This distinction is crucial — and is exactly why future challenges remain fully alive. 

Why This Is Only the Beginning 

The Italian Constitutional Court examines precisely the legal arguments that are put before it — and only those. The Turin case raised narrow questions focused on retroactivity and equality. But two other courts — Mantova and Campobasso — have already filed broader, deeper challenges on entirely separate legal grounds. 

These are not replays of the same case. They are distinct proceedings involving different rights, different constitutional theories, and different legal questions. 

If the Court believed these cases raised identical questions, it would have consolidated them. Instead, it preserved them as separate hearings — a clear indication that each referral raises unique concerns. 

The outcome of one does not predetermine the others. 

Upcoming timeline  

• Mantova hearing: June 9, 2026 

• Campobasso hearings: TBD 

• Supreme Court (Sezioni Unite) "Minor Issue" hearing: April 14, 2026 

This is an active, evolving legal landscape.  

The Constitutional Principles at Stake 

Although all three court referrals challenge the same law, each focuses on different parts of the Italian Constitution.  

1. Turin Referral (Heard March 11, 2026)

Articles raised: 2, 3, 117(1) 
Core theme: Retroactivity, equality, and EU law.  

• Article 2 — Inviolable Rights: 
  Citizenship by descent is a birthright. Retroactively declaring someone “never Italian” violates legal certainty. 

• Article 3 — Equality: 
  A sudden cutoff date unfairly splits identical applicants into two groups without justification or transition. 

• Article 117(1) — EU/International Law: 
  EU law prohibits automatic, retroactive loss of citizenship. International norms forbid arbitrary deprivation of nationality. 

In short: Turin argues the law improperly reaches backward and contradicts settled national and EU principles. 

2. Mantova Referral (Hearing June 9, 2026)

Articles raised: 1(2), 2, 3, 22, 24, 56, 58, 72(4), 77, 117(1) 
Core theme: Fundamental rights, minors’ rights, democracy, and misuse of emergency powers. 

Mantova expands far beyond Turin, arguing that the law:  

• Violates personal and family rights (Articles 2, 3). 

• Harms minors, who should not lose birthright citizenship because of administrative delays. 

• Removes access to justice for people who are Italian from birth (Article 24). 

• Interferes with voting rights, which depend on citizenship (Articles 56, 58). 

• Improperly uses an emergency decree to redefine who the “people” are (Articles 1(2), 72(4), 77). 

• Conflicts with EU law (Article 117(1)).  

In short: Mantova argues the decree affects core democratic rights and was passed through an illegitimate emergency procedure.

3. Campobasso Referrals (Hearings TBD)

Articles raised: 2, 3, 22, 72(4), 77, 117(1)
Core theme: Political motive, improper emergency use, and protection of birthright citizenship. 

Campobasso focuses heavily on intent and procedure:  

• Article 22 — No citizenship deprivation for political reasons: 
  The government openly aimed to reduce applicant numbers and prevent a “rush,” making the law politically motivated. 

• Articles 72(4) & 77 — Abuse of emergency decrees: 
  A decades-long citizenship backlog is not an “extraordinary emergency.”  

It also reinforces that:  

• Birthright citizenship is an inviolable personal right (Article 2). 

• Differential treatment of Italians born abroad violates equality (Article 3).

• EU citizenship cannot be lost automatically (Article 117(1)). 
   

In short: Campobasso frames the law as politically motivated, procedurally illegitimate, and incompatible with the nature of citizenship itself. 

Why These Cases Are Separate 

Each referral highlights a different issue:  

• Turin → Retroactivity, equality, EU law 

   

• Mantova → Fundamental rights, minors, voting rights, justice, emergency power limits 

   

• Campobasso → Political motive, emergency power abuse, protection of birthright citizenship   

This is why the Constitutional Court must analyze them separately — and why the March 11 ruling is only the beginning.   

What This Means for You Right Now

Whether you have already started gathering documents, are planning to start, or are simply watching developments, here is the key takeaway:  

This week’s events do not close the door on jure sanguinis. 

Here’s why:  

1. Multiple challenges remain active.  

It is not uncommon for the Constitutional Court to reject one referral and accept another framed differently. Law 74/2025 is being challenged on multiple independent constitutional grounds. It only takes one of those grounds to be accepted for the law to fall. The constitutional battle has only just begun. 

2. The legal landscape is stable for now.  

This decision gives the Italian government no reason to prioritize further changes to the law. Politically, this reduces any immediate pressure to reopen the issue with new legislation or restrictions. 

3. You still have time to complete your documents and file your case.   

The current legal framework is stable for now. This remains a welcome window of opportunity to focus on finishing your document portfolio correctly and being ready to file in the strongest possible position.  

Final Thoughts

We understand that constitutional litigation can feel intimidating. But this week’s events should not discourage you. What happened on March 11 was one procedural step in a much larger, multistage process. It did not resolve the central question we are all watching:

Can the Italian government retroactively strip citizenship from people who, under more than a century of law, were citizens from birth?    

That question is still very much alive.