Italian Citizenship by Descent After March 2026

For many families seeking Italian citizenship by descent, the Constitutional Court hearing held in March 2026 was expected to be a turning point. Many applicants hoped the Court would strike down the restrictions introduced by Decree Law 36/2025, later converted into Law 74/2025. Instead, the immediate outcome confirmed that the new framework remains in force, and that citizenship by descent cases must now be assessed within a much narrower legal structure.

This matters because the reform changed the legal position of many descendants born abroad. Under Article 3 bis, a person born outside Italy, including before the new law entered into force, who also holds another citizenship, is considered never to have acquired Italian citizenship unless one of the statutory exceptions applies. The official coordinated text of the law makes clear that the old understanding of iure sanguinis is no longer the default rule for a very large number of applicants.

The constitutional court rejects the questions of constitutional legitimacy concerning decree law 36/2025 on citizenship

Press and Communications Office of the Constitutional Court, Press Release – March 12, 2026 – Pending the formal publication of the judgment, the Press and Communications Office announces that the Constitutional Court has declared partly unfounded and partly inadmissible the questions of constitutional legitimacy raised by the Tribunal of Turin concerning Article 1 of Decree Law No. 36 of 2025, converted into Law No. 74 of 2025, titled “Urgent provisions on citizenship.”

The decree establishes that, as an exception to the previous rules that allowed unlimited transmission of citizenship by descent (iure sanguinis), a person is considered never to have acquired Italian citizenship if they were born abroad, including before the entry into force of this provision, and possess another citizenship, unless one of the following conditions applies:

a) citizenship status has been recognized, either administratively or through a court decision, following an application submitted by 11:59 PM on March 27, 2025
b) a parent or grandparent possesses, or possessed at the time of death, exclusively Italian citizenship
c) a parent or adoptive parent resided in Italy for at least two continuous years after acquiring Italian citizenship and before the birth or adoption of the child

The Court declared unfounded the objections raised by the Tribunal of Turin under Article 3 of the Italian Constitution. The Tribunal had argued, on one hand, that it was arbitrary to distinguish between those who requested recognition of citizenship before March 28, 2025 and those who submitted their request afterward. On the other hand, it claimed that the law violated acquired rights because it would effectively amount to an implicit revocation of citizenship with retroactive effect and without any transitional legal provisions.

The Court also rejected the claim that the law violates Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which grant European Union citizenship to anyone who holds citizenship of a member state.

The Court further declared inadmissible the challenge based on Article 15, paragraph 2, of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality or of the right to change their nationality.

Finally, the Court declared inadmissible the objection based on Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Fourth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that no one may be deprived of the right to enter the territory of the state of which they are a citizen.

The Constitutional Court has spoken, and the result is not the one many families had hoped for

What Has Happened Now? On March 11, 2026, the Court held its public hearing on Article 3 bis of Law 74/2025, the provision at the center of the Tajani Decree. On March 12, the outcome became clear: the constitutional challenge was rejected, with the questions considered partly unfounded and partly inadmissible. In practical terms, the Decree remains valid and continues to govern Italian citizenship by descent claims involving descendants born abroad.

According to the official Constitutional Court record, the Turin judges questioned whether the retroactive reach of the new provision violated constitutional principles such as equality, reasonableness, legal certainty, and Italy’s international obligations. These were serious objections, and they explain why the March 2026 hearing was watched so closely both in Italy and abroad.

This means the Court did not reopen the previous, broader interpretation of iure sanguinis. The two generation restriction introduced by the 2025 reform has not been struck down through this constitutional route. For many applicants, that is a major disappointment. But it does not mean that every path is closed. It means the legal battle has changed shape.

What This Means?

The key question is no longer whether the Tajani Decree will survive. It has survived. The real issue now is how the law is interpreted and whether a person can still fit within one of the exceptions or protected situations preserved by the current framework.

In other words, the focus moves away from a broad constitutional attack and toward detailed case by case analysis. Timing, documents, prior filings, consular steps, family links, and factual evidence are now more important than ever. The legal landscape is narrower, but it is not necessarily empty.

Why This Is Still Important?

For years, many descendants of Italians abroad pursued citizenship in good faith, investing time, money, and emotional energy into document collection and legal preparation. They were not asking for special treatment. They were seeking recognition of a status they believed had passed to them by birth.

The Court’s decision does not erase that history, but it confirms that Parliament’s reform remains in force. From this moment forward, claims must be evaluated under the new legal reality, not under the expectation that the Constitutional Court would restore the old one.

The Arguments Presented During the Hearing

Although the Court ultimately upheld the law, the hearing itself provided a detailed picture of the competing legal narratives surrounding the reform. Four attorneys representing different perspectives challenged the legislation on constitutional grounds, while the State’s attorney defended the government’s position.

One of the central arguments raised by the lawyers concerned retroactivity. According to the defense, applying the new restrictions to individuals born decades before the reform undermines fundamental principles of legal certainty. The attorneys argued that people who relied on the previous interpretation of citizenship law had legitimate expectations that should be protected. Several speakers noted that when other European countries have reformed their citizenship regimes, they rarely imposed immediate retroactive effects. In many cases transitional periods were introduced to allow applicants time to adapt to the new rules. The absence of such a transition in the Italian reform was presented as one of its most problematic aspects.

Another theme concerned the role of administrative inefficiency. One lawyer focused specifically on the functioning of Italian consulates abroad, describing a system in which access to citizenship recognition has often been obstructed by long waiting lists and inconsistent appointment systems. In some cases, applicants reportedly waited years simply to submit their documentation. The hearing referenced situations where applications initiated many years earlier were ultimately rejected due to legislative changes introduced long after the process had begun. The argument suggested that the state cannot simultaneously delay recognition procedures and then use those delays as justification for denying rights.

A third line of criticism targeted the rationale used to justify the decree itself. According to one of the attorneys, the emergency narrative underlying the reform was based on questionable assumptions. The claim that descendants abroad represent a threat to national interests or to the European Union was described as unsupported by evidence. Critics argued that the decree effectively shifts responsibility for administrative inefficiencies onto applicants who have no control over the pace of consular processing. They suggested that less drastic measures could have addressed the problem, such as a multi year transition period or explicit protection for individuals already waiting for consular appointments.

Another lawyer challenged the internal logic of the reform. The legislation draws on legal precedents from cases involving citizenship by investment in countries such as Cyprus and Malta. According to the attorney, those precedents concern naturalization policies and therefore cannot be directly applied to the recognition of citizenship by descent. The argument emphasized that Italian jurisprudence has historically treated citizenship rights connected to lineage as deserving of particular protection. When laws affecting such rights change, individuals should be given sufficient time to understand the new framework and take action to preserve their status. In the words cited during the hearing, the state should ensure a reasonable period allowing people to be informed and to act in order to maintain their citizenship.

What Happens Next?

The most important step now is not to wait for a constitutional reversal that has not arrived. It is to assess whether a claim still survives under the current law.

That means verifying whether there was a filing or court action before the March 27, 2025 deadline, whether there were timely efforts to secure a consular appointment, and whether the family line falls within one of the statutory exceptions still recognized by the reform. In this new phase, success depends less on abstract arguments and more on precise legal strategy supported by documents.

This is the key point for anyone asking whether Italian citizenship by descent is still possible after March 2026. The answer is yes, but only within the logic of the new law. The debate is no longer centered on whether the reform exists. The real issue now is how the reform is interpreted, which exceptions may apply, and what evidence an applicant can present to fall within one of the protected categories.

The law itself identifies those exceptions with precision. Protection may exist where a complete application was filed by the deadline of March 27, 2025, where a judicial action was commenced by that same deadline, or where the applicant can rely on specific family links to Italy, such as a parent born in Italy, a parent who resided in Italy for at least two continuous years before the child’s birth or adoption, or a first degree ascendant of the parent who was born in Italy. These are not minor procedural details. They are now central to the success or failure of many claims.

The Impact of the New Legal Framework: The Case of Argentine Claimants Before the Palermo Court

Recent reporting also shows that lower courts are already shaping the practical impact of the new regime. One example discussed in recent legal commentary concerns a decision of the Tribunal of Palermo involving descendants of Italian citizens living in Argentina. The court reportedly applied the new law but still recognized citizenship because the claimants had proven timely efforts to secure a consular appointment and had documented communications sent before the critical deadline. That example suggests that many future cases will turn less on broad constitutional theory and more on documentary proof.

In other words, citizenship by descent litigation in Italy is entering a new phase. For years, many applicants relied mainly on lineage and civil records tracing descent from an Italian ancestor. That remains important, but it may no longer be enough. Today, legal strategy also requires evidence of timing, compliance, protected status, and a concrete connection to the statutory exceptions preserved by the reform.

This shift reflects a broader institutional view that has emerged in recent constitutional discussion. The State has argued that citizenship cannot be treated as an unlimited status detached from any effective connection with Italy, while the Court has recognized that Parliament has a wide margin of discretion in regulating the acquisition of citizenship, provided that its choices remain reasonable and proportionate. Whatever one’s personal view of this policy direction, it now shapes the legal environment in which all serious applications must be evaluated.

For families, descendants, and legal practitioners, the lesson is clear. The March 2026 Constitutional Court hearing did not restore the previous expansive understanding of Italian citizenship by descent. Instead, it confirmed that the future of these cases will depend on close statutory analysis, precise evidence, and a case specific legal strategy. For many applicants, the difference between a viable claim and a rejected one may now lie in records, deadlines, and factual details that would once have been considered secondary.

If you are evaluating an Italian citizenship by descent claim after the March 2026 ruling, the first step is no longer to assume eligibility based on ancestry alone. The first step is to determine whether your case falls within the surviving legal pathways recognized by the current law.