This is the second part of our deep dive into the recent Italian citizenship ruling 142/2025. In the first article, we explored the pessimistic perspective—how the ruling could, paradoxically, be used to defend the new restrictive law.

Now, we turn to the optimistic view. And let me be clear: this is the perspective I find more compelling and legally sound.

The ruling is not a simple “win,” but it is far from a defeat. It’s a strategic map, filled with powerful signals, legal principles, and clear warnings to the legislator. It provides us with the very weapons we need for the next, decisive battle against the retroactivity of the Tajani Decree (Law 74/2025).

Before we dive into the legal specifics, it’s worth noting the bizarre political context, a contradiction many of you have pointed out. The same government that is trying to slam the door on citizenship by descent is simultaneously spending millions on “Roots Tourism” and creating incentives for foreigners to buy homes and revitalize depopulated towns. This internal conflict only strengthens the argument that the new law wasn’t a well-thought-out necessity, but a rash political move—one that may not stand up to serious legal scrutiny.

Let’s explore the powerful silver linings hidden within the Court’s decision.

---

Reading Between the Lines: 4 Legal Weapons from the Italian Citizenship Ruling

A careful analysis reveals that the Court has embedded a series of principles and warnings that provide powerful legal tools to contest the new law. Far from being a defeat, the ruling is a compass pointing the way.

1. The Core Principle: Violation of “Vested Rights” (Diritti Acquisiti)

This is the most powerful argument we have. The established jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation (Italy’s highest court of appeals), in its United Sections ruling of 2022, affirmed that citizenship *iure sanguinis* is a “perfected subjective right” acquired at birth, not a concession from the State. The legal action is merely declaratory; it recognizes a status that has always existed.

The Optimistic Angle: The Constitutional Court, in this new ruling, could have ignored this principle. It did not. Instead, it explicitly quoted the 2022 Cassation ruling. By doing so, it sent a clear signal: it acknowledges and respects the doctrine that citizenship is a vested right. This makes it incredibly difficult for the Court to later rule that the government can retroactively erase a right it has just implicitly confirmed as being acquired at birth. To do so would be a stunning reversal of a very recent and high-level precedent.

Source: Constitutional Court, Ruling 142/2025, referencing Court of Cassation, Rulings 25317 and 25318 of 2022

IT: Contestualmente, il diritto vivente ha sottolineato che lo status civitatis fondato sul vincolo di filiazione ha carattere «permanente ed è imprescrittibile [e] giustiziabile in ogni tempo in base alla semplice prova della fattispecie acquisitiva integrata dalla nascita da cittadino italiano».

EN: Contextually, the living law has emphasized that the status civitatis founded on the bond of filiation has a “permanent and imprescriptible character [and is] justiciable at any time based on the simple proof of the acquisitive event integrated by birth to an Italian citizen.”

2. The Procedural Flaw: An Unconstitutional Use of an “Emergency Decree”

As some of you have astutely noted, the method used to pass this law is as questionable as its content. The government used a Deecreto Legge (DL), an emergency decree, to change a fundamental aspect of citizenship. Citizenship is a cornerstone of personal identity and legal status; it is not the kind of matter that should be altered by knee-jerk emergency orders.

The Optimistic Angle: The Italian Constitution requires a genuine state of “necessity and urgency” for a DL to be valid. Is an administrative backlog, however severe, a national emergency on par with a pandemic or financial crisis? It’s a weak argument. The Constitutional Court has a history of striking down laws converted from decrees where this urgency was lacking, as established in key past rulings. This provides a powerful, separate line of attack: we can argue that the entire law is invalid because the government abused its emergency powers.

Source: Constitutional Court, Ruling 171/2007

IT: In particolare, la Corte ha precisato che il vizio di legittimità costituzionale del decreto-legge, derivante dalla evidente mancanza dei suoi presupposti, si traduce in un vizio in procedendo della legge di conversione, che ne determina l’illegittimità costituzionale.

EN: In particular, the Court has specified that the constitutional legitimacy flaw of the decree-law, deriving from the evident lack of its prerequisites, translates into a procedural flaw of the conversion law, which determines its constitutional illegitimacy.

3. The Shield of EU Law and Legitimate Expectations

The Court dedicated a detailed section (11.3) to the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), focusing on cases like *Tjebbes*. These cases establish an ironclad principle: the loss of citizenship (and thus EU citizenship) cannot be automatic and indiscriminate for entire categories of people. It must be subject to an individual examination and a proportionality test.

The Optimistic Angle: This is a clear warning shot. The new law, with its retroactive “cut-off date,” operates as an automatic, mass loss of status. It violates the principle of legitimate expectations—the trust that individuals place in the stability of the law. For decades, people have built their lives, families, and identities based on a right the law said they had. To have it stripped away with ZERO notice and ZERO opportunity to act is precisely the kind of disproportionate and arbitrary measure that both Italian constitutional principles and EU law are designed to prevent.

Source: Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-221/17, Tjebbes (referenced by the Italian Constitutional Court in Ruling 142/2025)

IT: Il diritto dell’Unione osta a una normativa nazionale che prevede la perdita della cittadinanza di uno Stato membro e, pertanto, della cittadinanza dell’Unione, in modo automatico, senza che in nessun momento le autorità nazionali competenti effettuino un esame individuale delle conseguenze di tale perdita dal punto di vista del diritto dell’Unione.

EN: EU law precludes national legislation that provides for the loss of the nationality of a Member State, and therefore the loss of citizenship of the Union, automatically, without the competent national authorities carrying out at any time an individual examination of the consequences of that loss from the perspective of EU law.

4. The Door Remains Open: The Battle Has Just Begun

Finally, the Court explicitly stated that the new discipline of D.L. 36/2025 was not the subject of its judgment. This is a crucial point for anyone fighting for their Italian citizenship by descent.

The Optimistic Angle: The game is far from over. This ruling concerned an abstract and, according to the Court, poorly framed question. The real battle—the one over the constitutionality of the new law and its retroactivity—has yet to be fought. The Court has kept its hands free and has already indicated, through its powerful references to vested rights and EU law, what its orientation will likely be. This Italian citizenship ruling is not a defeat, but merely the end of the first round. Hope, now, is more concrete and better-armed than ever.

Source: Constitutional Court, Ruling 142/2025

IT: Stante tale quadro normativo di riferimento, la nuova disciplina… non si riverbera sulla rilevanza delle questioni sollevate dalle stesse… resta applicabile ai giudizi a quibus la pregressa disciplina, cui si riferiscono le odierne censure.

EN: Given this regulatory framework, the new discipline… does not affect the relevance of the questions raised… the previous discipline, to which the present challenges refer, remains applicable to the judgments at hand.

---

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What is the latest Italian citizenship ruling?

The latest significant Italian citizenship ruling is decision 142/2025 from the Constitutional Court. While it did not strike down the new restrictive law (Law 74/2025), it provided powerful legal arguments against the law’s retroactivity by referencing ‘vested rights’ and EU legal principles, offering a strategic path forward for applicants.

Does the new Italian citizenship ruling help existing applications?

Yes, the ruling helps existing applications by providing a clearer legal strategy. It reinforces the concept that citizenship by descent is a ‘vested right’ acquired at birth. This strengthens arguments against the new law’s retroactivity, which attempts to strip this right from those who already possess it. The ruling also highlights procedural flaws in how the new law was passed, opening another avenue for legal challenges.

What are the main legal arguments after the 142/2025 ruling?

The main legal arguments are: 1) The new law violates ‘vested rights’ (diritti acquisiti) to citizenship. 2) The use of an ’emergency decree’ to pass the law was likely unconstitutional. 3) The law’s immediate, retroactive effect violates the principles of ‘legitimate expectations’ and EU law, which protect against the automatic, mass loss of citizenship.