Thousands of people who recently became Spanish citizens under the so-called ‘ley de nietos’ have had their voting rights suspended by the Supreme Court. The court says the move responds to what it calls a "real and serious" risk of electoral fraud. The decision has triggered a heated debate within the judiciary and left the rights of around half a million new Spaniards in question.
The ruling came from the Supreme Court’s Third Chamber after four hours of closed-door talks among six judges. Vox and Iustitia Europa brought the case, arguing that the government’s use of the 2022 Democratic Memory Law had swelled the electoral roll of Spaniards living abroad (CERA) by granting nationality too broadly. The court’s majority agreed, even though there was no concrete evidence of fraud, and ordered a temporary suspension of voting rights for those naturalized under the Justice Ministry’s instruction. Information from BBC Mundo and El País, the measure affects people unable to provide documents proving they are descendants of exiles for political or ideological reasons, or because of their religion. Those who can show such lineage retain their rights.
By May 31, more than 2.4 million people had applied or registered at Spanish consulates under the grandchild law, showing the scale of interest and its potential impact.
The dispute centers on a Justice Ministry directive that treated all Spaniards who left the country between July 1936 and December 1955 as exiles, making their descendants eligible for Spanish nationality. Neither the far-right parties nor the Supreme Court challenged the law itself. Both targeted the ministry’s broad interpretation, which they say allowed irregular naturalizations and could affect future elections. As El País reported, the legal challenge did not seek to overturn the law but to limit the Ministry’s broad application of exile status to all emigrants from that period.
The makeup of the judicial panel added to the controversy. Three of the six judges are known for conservative views. They include Luis Díez-Picazo and Rafael Requero, as well as Antonio Fonseca-Herrero. Requero has opposed same-sex marriage, and Díez-Picazo was involved in a high-profile reversal on mortgage tax law. The other three judges, including progressive Alicia Millán, joined the Supreme Court after the 2024 renewal of the General Council of the Judiciary. Millán was the only dissenting voice. She argued that suspending voting rights was excessive and that the Supreme Court lacked authority to review the Justice Ministry’s instruction because it had not been formally challenged.
The decision was not unanimous. Five judges supported the suspension, while Millán prepared a dissenting opinion, arguing that the risk of fraud was unproven and the court was overreaching. The ruling was made public before the full legal reasoning was released. Even some Supreme Court members were surprised and questioned the legal basis for such an unusual step.
The Supreme Court’s decision is provisional and does not cancel the naturalization process itself; the final ruling on the basic issue is still pending. Spanish and international media report that the temporary suspension affects people already registered in CERA and those whose registration is still being processed, pending verification at consulates.
The effects extend beyond the immediate suspension. The Supreme Court’s move directly challenges the authority of the Central Electoral Board (JEC), whose leadership includes several Supreme Court judges. The JEC had previously said it was not responsible for overseeing the electoral impact of the Democratic Memory Law. The court’s intervention has put that position in question. If the Supreme Court eventually overturns the JEC’s decision, it would be a rare case of the court reversing the collective judgment of its own members.
Legal experts warn of serious consequences. If the court’s final ruling, expected in December, invalidates the Justice Ministry’s instruction, it could threaten voting rights and the nationality status of more than half a million people who have already become citizens under the ‘ley de nietos’. Such a move would undermine the legal certainty of administrative acts usually considered final in Spanish law. El País and other major Spanish outlets report that representatives of Spaniards abroad have condemned the decision, calling it a blow to new citizens’ rights and fueling wider public controversy.
The episode has exposed deep divisions within Spain’s highest court and brought the intersection of nationality and electoral law into sharp focus amid political suspicion. The Supreme Court’s willingness to act on unproven fraud claims, echoing arguments from the right and far right, marks a shift in judicial activism that could erode trust in the legal system and the democratic process. The court’s open conflict with its own members on the JEC adds to the sense of institutional crisis. As the country awaits a final ruling, the outcome could have lasting consequences for national identity and democratic participation in Spain.
