The Supreme Court's Difficult Decision on the 'Grandparents Law' (Agustín Rúiz Robledo in El Hapañol)

The Supreme Court faces a complex decision regarding the application of the 'grandparents law,' which could determine whether thousands of people obtained Spanish nationality correctly or if the scope of the law was improperly expanded.

The **'grandparents law,'** officially the eighth additional provision of Law 20/2022, on Democratic Memory, has placed the **Supreme Court** at a crossroads. The issue is not minor: determining whether Spanish nationality has been granted to thousands of individuals based on an interpretation that aligns with the law, or conversely, if there has been an illegal expansion of its supposed beneficiaries. The debate has escalated from a technical-legal matter to a purely political one, with conflicting pronouncements ranging from accusations of electoral fraud to staunch defense of rights.

## The Genesis of the Controversy: An Instruction Under Scrutiny

It all began with the law itself, approved in October 2022. Its objective was clear: to allow the option for Spanish nationality to those born outside of Spain whose parent, grandparent, or great-grandparent was originally Spanish and who had subsequently lost or renounced it due to exile for political, ideological, belief, orientation, or sensual identity reasons.
However, the key to the controversy lies in the **Instruction of October 25, 2022**, signed by the **Directorate General of Legal Security and Public Faith**.

This instruction, issued just six days after the law, introduced an interpretation that many consider a departure from the legal text. Instead of understanding that two cumulative conditions were required – being Spanish and having suffered exile– the instruction distinguished between two groups: children and grandchildren of Spaniards who emigrated, and those who were exiled. Even more controversial was the fact that it established a **presumption of exile status** for all Spaniards who left the country between July 18, 1936, and December 31, 1955. In practice, this equated the requirement of 'exiled' with that of 'emigrated' or 'patriated,' significantly widening the number of potential beneficiaries.

This interpretation, according to many jurists, directly contradicts the intent of the legislator, who had rejected amendments during parliamentary proceedings that sought a broader concession of nationality. The **Association for Reconciliation and Historical Truth** attempted to challenge this instruction, but the appeal was dismissed in April 2023 by the High Court of Justice of Madrid, alleging lack of active standing on the part of the association. The merits of the case—the legality of the instruction—were thus left without judicial pronouncement.

## The Central Electoral Board and Divided Opinions

The matter resurfaced strongly at the **Central Electoral Board (JEC)** on July 16, 2026. Various submissions, presented by the Independent and Civil Servants' Union (CSIF) and several political groups, warned about a growth in the electoral census allegedly resulting from the application of the instruction. The JEC was divided. The majority opted for a formalistic argument: determining the circumstances and procedure for acquiring nationality exceeded its competencies, as did assessing the constitutionality of the law.

However, four members disagreed, arguing that it was imperative to address the substance of the matter. They argued that the instruction expanded the census 'contra legem' (against the law), without respecting what was stipulated by the grandparents law. This internal division, compared by some to the positions taken during the analysis of the Amnesty Law, highlighted the complexity of the case and the polarization of legal opinions. Curiously, in this instance, the pogre jurists adopted a formalistic interpretation, while the conservatives leaned toward an anti-formalist view, inverting traditional positions.

The **Supreme Court** intervened by agreeing to the precautionary suspension of electoral effects for those who obtained nationality under this provision. This measure, described by the article's author as "proportional," unleashed a political storm. Minister **Félix Bolaños** criticized the decision, arguing that it deprived thousands of Spaniards of their right to vote. Conversely, the Supreme Court received congratulations for, according to some, preventing a "massive electoral fraud."

## The Supreme Court's Dilemma: Between Legality and Consequence

The Supreme Court now faces a decision that will set a precedent. The first option is to confirm the JEC's agreement, a formally plausible route. However, this decision could be unsatisfactory from a perspective of legal justice, as it would validate the excess of a Directorate General that, according to arguments, expanded the grounds for acquiring nationality without legal coverage. This would clash with constitutional mandates such as the hierarchy of norms and the submission of the Administration to the law.

A second path, defended by the dissenting vote in the JEC, would be to annul the JEC's agreement and order that the Census Office only register new entries when the applicant proves the cause of exile required by law. This would guarantee the voting right of properly registered Spaniards, but it could create a new category of Spanish citizens with nationality but without the right to suffrage—something, in the author's opinion, that should only be possible if established by a statutory legislator.

A third option, considered the most coherent by the author, would be to declare nullity of the two provisions of the instruction that exceed the legal framework. This would also involve annulling registry entries of nationality made under this instruction that do not meet the legal requirements. Although this could generate formal objections, such as competence to rectify registry entries, there are precedents of contentious judgments that have nullified acquisitions of nationality.

A "moderate" possibility would be to declare the instruction provisions void for the future, prohibiting their application, but without annulling those entries already made. **Article 73 of the Law of Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (LJCA)**, which establishes that the annulling of a general provision does not affect previous firm acts, could support this position. Nevertheless, the nature of instructions, which in this case have "ad extra" effects on citizens, gives them a regulatory nature, making them subject to appeal.

The final decision of the **Supreme Court** is crucial. It is expected to be swift, well-argued, and, if possible, unanimous. This would help depoliticize an issue that has generated accusations of "judicial coup d'état" on one side and "electoral rigging" on the other. Justice, represented by the goddess Themis, now has the task of illuminating the magistrates in this complex and polarized case.