In the aftermath of the Constitutional Court hearing of June 9, a difficult but necessary reflection must be made.

The debate surrounding Italy's new citizenship law has focused primarily on the substantive legal issues raised by the reform. Far less attention has been devoted to the litigation strategy adopted by those seeking to challenge it. Yet strategy matters. Sometimes it matters as much as the merits themselves.

The Romans understood this well. Their principle was simple: divide et impera - divide and rule. Separate the issues. Fight on multiple fronts. Secure incremental victories. Never allow independent battles to become unnecessarily dependent upon one another.

Unfortunately, the opposite approach appears to have prevailed.

Over the past months, considerable efforts have been devoted to obtaining parallel intervention from both the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court's Joint Sections (Sezioni Unite) on interconnected aspects of the same legislative framework. The underlying assumption seems to have been that simultaneous proceedings before Italy's two highest judicial authorities would strengthen the challenge to the law.

The opposite may prove true.

The problem is not merely that multiple issues have been concentrated at the highest judicial levels. The more serious problem is that the strategy has effectively sought to anchor the Constitutional Court's decision to proceedings before the Supreme Court while simultaneously anchoring the Supreme Court's decision to the Constitutional Court.

In practice, the Constitutional Court has been asked to consider questions whose broader significance is said to depend upon issues pending before the Sezioni Unite. At the same time, the proceedings before the Sezioni Unite have increasingly been framed against the backdrop of unresolved constitutional questions.

This creates a dangerous procedural interdependence.

Instead of allowing each court to perform its distinct institutional function and reach decisions within its own sphere of competence, the litigation strategy has encouraged each court to look toward the other. The Constitutional Court is invited to consider what the Supreme Court may eventually decide. The Supreme Court is encouraged to remain mindful of what the Constitutional Court may eventually say.

The result is entirely predictable: delay.

Rather than producing two independent opportunities for judicial progress, the strategy risks creating a situation in which each court has reasons to await developments in the other forum. What should have been separate tracks become intertwined. What could have been sequential victories become a single, slower process.

This is precisely the opposite of divide et impera.

Had the issues been strategically separated, there is a strong possibility that the citizenship community would already have obtained a decision from the Sezioni Unite on the so-called "minor issue." Such a ruling would not have resolved every controversy surrounding the new legislation, but it would have established an important precedent, generated jurisprudential momentum, and created additional room to litigate the numerous unresolved questions that remain.

Instead, by consolidating so many expectations into a broader constitutional confrontation, an opportunity may have been lost.

The significance of this strategic choice becomes even more apparent after the June 9 hearing.

While the Constitutional Court has not yet issued its ruling, the hearing revealed what many observers perceived as a clear institutional inclination toward preserving the legislative framework enacted by Parliament. Whether this ultimately reflects the content of the forthcoming judgment remains to be seen. However, it is difficult to ignore the possibility that the Court has already signaled considerable deference to the political choices underlying the reform.

If that assessment proves correct, the strategic consequences are profound.

When a constitutional court appears reluctant to invalidate an entire legislative framework, the rational response is not to place all available legal arguments before that court at once. The rational response is to diversify the litigation strategy, pursue independent avenues of attack, and accumulate favorable precedents wherever possible.

Legislation is rarely dismantled in a single judicial blow.

It is challenged piece by piece. One issue is isolated. One precedent is secured. One inconsistency is exposed. Then another. And another. Over time, the legal foundations of the measure begin to erode.

That is how difficult laws are defeated.

By contrast, concentrating multiple challenges before interconnected proceedings risks achieving the opposite effect. Instead of weakening the law, it may provide the law with additional time, additional legitimacy, and additional opportunities to consolidate its position.

This is why the June 9 hearing should prompt not only legal analysis but also strategic self-examination.

The question is no longer whether the new citizenship law presents constitutional and legal vulnerabilities. It undoubtedly does.

The question is whether those vulnerabilities were best addressed by linking the fate of the Constitutional Court proceedings to the fate of the proceedings before the Sezioni Unite, thereby encouraging each court to look toward the other before acting.

The Romans would likely have answered that question differently.

They understood that victories are rarely achieved by concentrating every battle on a single front. They are achieved by dividing the battlefield, isolating the issues, and advancing one position at a time.

Divide et impera.

It is an ancient lesson. One that may be more relevant today than ever.