Spain’s judiciary is facing a crisis of confidence as political battles increasingly play out in courtrooms instead of parliament. Recent weeks have brought high-profile cases involving the family of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, a controversial amnesty law and sharp divisions among judges. These developments have overshadowed major legislative reforms and fueled the perception that the justice system is no longer impartial. The amnesty dispute has become a particularly clear test of the boundaries between Parliament, the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court.
Two recent surveys, one by Ipsos for La Vanguardia and another by 40dB. for EL PAÍS and SER, found that more than 60% of Spaniards believe the courts are influenced by political interests. The widespread skepticism has alarmed senior figures in the judiciary, including Supreme Court magistrate Manuel Marchena, who called the situation a tragedy for the country’s democratic institutions.
The term “lawfare” has become central to Spain’s political vocabulary. The government and left-wing parties use it to accuse certain judges of targeting the Sánchez administration for political reasons. Opposition parties argue that such claims distract from corruption investigations. The debate has intensified as cases involving the Prime Minister’s family and the courts’ application of the amnesty law dominate headlines, leaving other impressive policy changes largely unnoticed.
The law, formally known as Organic Law 1/2024 of 10 June on amnesty for institutional, political and social normalization in Catalonia, entered into force on 11 June 2024 after publication in Spain’s Official State Gazette. It covers criminal, administrative and accounting liability connected to the Catalan independence process, while leaving decisions on individual cases to the courts. In June 2025, Spain’s Constitutional Court upheld the law’s constitutionality in principle in a 6-4 decision. Judges still had to determine how its provisions applied in specific cases.
The case-by-case process exposed a sharp judicial disagreement over embezzlement convictions involving former Catalan officials Oriol Junqueras, Jordi Turull, Raül Romeva and Dolors Bassa. The Supreme Court initially ruled that the use of public funds in these cases fell outside the amnesty’s protection. The Constitutional Court later rejected that restrictive interpretation in an appeal involving Bassa, prompting the Supreme Court to revise its approach. In October 2026, the Supreme Court applied the amnesty to all four and annulled their disqualification penalties, restoring their eligibility to hold public office and stand for election. This was judicial implementation of the 2024 law, not a new act of parliamentary approval.
A further European-law dimension emerged on 16 July 2026, when the Court of Justice of the European Union reportedly concluded that EU law did not prevent Spain’s amnesty structure, while objecting to the two-month deadline imposed on judges administering it. The decision left Spanish courts responsible for applying the statute to individual defendants. Separate October proceedings concerning former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont and former ministers Lluís Puig and Toni Comín also showed the law’s continuing political significance. The Constitutional Court’s interpretation opened the way for the amnesty to cover Puigdemont’s case, while the Supreme Court rejected a Vox appeal against lifting national arrest warrants. The law originated in the parliamentary agreement between Sánchez’s Socialist Party and Junts after the 2023 general election.
Legal scholars and judges disagree over the extent of politicization. Some, like Gemma Ubasart, say most judges act with integrity but point to a minority whose actions appear politically motivated. Others, including José Juan Toharia, reject the idea of a broad judicial conspiracy. They say the real issue is the judicialization of politics, with politicians turning to the courts to resolve disputes they cannot settle themselves. Toharia says this ultimately damages the justice system’s credibility. Constitutional Court magistrate Laura Díez has described the limits of the court’s role this way: “We never interfere in how the Supreme Court or any other court interprets the law.”
Experts also point to media saturation and repeated coverage of a handful of high-profile cases as forces shaping public opinion. Borja Mapelli, a criminal law professor, notes that few judges have actually been convicted of misconduct and that the judiciary faces more oversight than other branches of law enforcement. Yet ideological divisions within the courts are clear, particularly in the Supreme Court, where appointments are heavily influenced by the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), an institution widely seen as politicized.
Vicente Guilarte, who served on the CGPJ for a decade, says the perception of political interference stems largely from the top of the judicial hierarchy. He argues that political interests shape the process for selecting Supreme Court judges, a view shared by other legal professionals. The system for recruiting judges and prosecutors has also drawn criticism for being outdated and, many argue, failing to prioritize critical thinking and modern legal skills.
Ideological leanings in the judiciary show up in the membership of professional associations. The conservative Asociación Profesional de la Magistratura (APM) remains the largest, while the progressive Juezas y Jueces para la Democracia is much smaller. Unaffiliated judges now make up the largest group, accounting for 42% of the total. Some experts argue that a degree of conservatism comes with the judicial role, since judges are tasked with upholding the law rather than driving change.
Another source of controversy is “acción popular,” a legal mechanism that allows groups to initiate criminal proceedings. Designed as a tool for public oversight, it is often used by ultra-conservative organizations and political parties to pursue cases against rivals. Proposals to restrict the practice have sparked debate, particularly because they could affect ongoing cases involving the Prime Minister’s family. Some propose giving prosecutors more power to filter such complaints; others say judges already have tools to dismiss unfounded cases.
The erosion of trust in the judiciary is seen as a direct threat to Spain’s democratic foundations. Ubasart warns that weakening faith in the courts strikes at the core of the rule of law. Mapelli links the trend to a broader crisis affecting democratic institutions across Europe, where the judiciary is often the last line of defense against political overreach. The situation in Spain echoes concerns raised by other recent cases, including the ban on public office for David Sánchez, the Prime Minister’s brother. The government called the ruling politically motivated and plans to appeal, as reported in this related coverage.
Spain’s judicial system is designed to ensure independence, but appointments to senior posts remain contentious. The CGPJ, which is responsible for these appointments, has faced years of political deadlock, prompting calls for reform. Debate over lawfare and judicial activism extends beyond Spain, with similar concerns emerging in France and Italy. The current climate of distrust has prompted calls for transparent reforms and renewed efforts to protect the courts’ neutrality.
