At this stage we know the outcome summarized in the press release, but not yet the legal reasoning behind the decision.
The Court examined only the specific constitutional questions raised by the Tribunal of Turin and addressed them within the limits in which they were formulated by that court.
In particular, the Turin court asked the Constitutional Court to examine only part of the new provisions introduced by Law 74/2025, specifically their application to individuals who were already born as of March 28, 2025, with reference to Article 1, letters a), a-bis) and b).

According to the judges of Turin, those provisions could potentially violate the following principles:

• Article 3 of the Italian Constitution, which protects equality before the law, the principle of legitimate expectations and the protection of vested rights, and prohibits arbitrary distinctions between individuals. The Court declared this objection unfounded.
• Article 117, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, in relation to Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Turin court argued that the new law could violate the principle of proportionality developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union, because it does not allow an individual examination of the consequences of losing citizenship and does not provide any prior notice allowing individuals to preserve it. The Constitutional Court declared this objection unfounded.
• Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality. This question was declared inadmissible.
• Article 3 of the Fourth Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits preventing a citizen from entering the territory of his or her own country. This question was also declared inadmissible.

At this stage it is necessary to wait for the publication of the full judgment in order to understand the precise legal grounds upon which the Court based its decision.
Most importantly, three additional constitutional challenges concerning the same legislation are already pending before the Constitutional Court. These questions were referred by the Tribunals of Mantova and Campobasso.
The first hearing is scheduled for June, while the dates of the other two hearings have not yet been set.
Mantova – hearing scheduled for June 9, 2026.
The Tribunal of Mantova has referred a constitutional question asking the Court to declare that the entire Article 3-bis of Law 91/1992 should not apply retroactively to individuals who were already born as of March 28, 2025.
The case concerns a minor child whose mother was recognized as an Italian citizen by a final court judgment in June 2025. The municipality refused to recognize citizenship for the child on the basis of the new legislation.
The Mantova court raises broader constitutional concerns regarding violations of:

• Article 2 of the Constitution, which protects the inviolable rights of the person;
• Article 3, which guarantees equality before the law, legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations;
• Article 22, which prohibits deprivation of citizenship for political reasons;
• Articles 72 and 77 of the Constitution, which regulate the use of emergency decree-laws;
• Article 117, in relation to international human rights obligations.

Campobasso – two additional constitutional referrals.
Two separate cases from the Tribunal of Campobasso (Judge Carissimi and Judge Casillo) are also pending before the Constitutional Court. The hearing has not been released.
The Judge Casillo has referred a constitutional question asking the Court to declare that Article 3-bis letters a, a bis e b of Law 91/1992 should not apply retroactively to individuals who were already born as of March 28, 2025.
The alleged constitutional violations raised in those cases are:

• Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, concerning equality, proportionality and the protection of legitimate expectations;
• Article 22, concerning the prohibition of deprivation of citizenship for political reasons;
• Articles 72 and 77, concerning the abuse of emergency decree legislation;
• Article 117, in relation to obligations arising from European Union law and international human rights law.

Another issue that may remain open concerns the so-called “1948 cases”, namely citizenship claims through the maternal line prior to 1948. None of the constitutional questions examined so far appears to address this issue directly.
In my opinion, applying the new law to those cases could potentially raise new constitutional questions related to gender discrimination, given the long-standing jurisprudence recognizing that women were historically prevented from transmitting Italian citizenship due to unconstitutional gender-based rules.
For applicants, this means that the situation is still evolving. The Constitutional Court has examined one set of constitutional arguments, but several others remain under consideration.
Eligibility must therefore continue to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and the legal landscape may continue to evolve as further constitutional decisions are issued.
The upcoming hearings before the Constitutional Court in the Mantova and Campobasso cases will be important in determining the future development of Italian citizenship by descent.
In the coming days we will also make available our pro-forma constitutional challenge, including additional legal arguments, for those who may wish to use it as a reference in their own proceedings.
For the moment, one point is clear: the constitutional debate is still open.
The challenge has just begun.