Portugal's Constitutional Court has struck down, for the second time in five months, a parliamentary decree that would have stripped naturalized citizens of their citizenship for serious crimes, a decision that puts the center-right coalition government and its right-wing allies at a constitutional impasse just as enforcement was set to begin.
The unanimous ruling, issued by all judges on the bench, found that the revised legislation—approved by the Portugal Assembly of the Republic in April with backing from PSD (Social Democratic Party), CDS-PP (People's Party), Chega (Enough Party), and Liberal Initiative—still violates constitutional guarantees of equality and proportionality, even after legislators attempted to correct flaws identified in the initial December 2024 rejection.
Why This Matters
For naturalized citizens: The decree would have authorized courts to revoke Portuguese nationality for dual nationals sentenced to 5 years or more in prison for crimes committed within 15 years of naturalization, including murder, rape, human trafficking, drug trafficking, and arms dealing. That threat has now been blocked—again.
For political stability: The ruling hands the center-right AD (Democratic Alliance) coalition a second humiliating defeat on one of its flagship law-and-order initiatives, and exposes deep tension between the judiciary and a parliamentary majority that claims popular mandate.
For legislative process: Parliament technically retains the power to override the court with a two-thirds supermajority, an unprecedented step that would trigger the most serious institutional clash in Portugal's modern democratic history.
What the Court Ruled
Judge Mariana Canotilho authored the decision, which the full plenary of the Portugal Constitutional Court endorsed without dissent. The judges concluded that despite cosmetic revisions—replacing "acquisition" with "obtention" of nationality and raising the prison threshold from 4 to 5 years—the law still functions as a discriminatory tool that applies exclusively to naturalized citizens, not those born Portuguese.
The court's reasoning hinges on a technical but powerful point: Because native-born Portuguese acquire citizenship retroactively from birth, and the decree applies only to crimes committed within 15 years of citizenship taking effect, no Portuguese-born citizen could ever be subject to the penalty, since they would have been minors during most of that window. The law is facially neutral but structurally biased.
The tribunal also rejected the inclusion of violent crimes like qualified homicide, enslavement, trafficking, rape, and sexual abuse. While acknowledging the severity of these offenses, judges ruled they lack any functional connection to national belonging or civic rupture—the traditional threshold for nationality deprivation. "The protection of legal interests is fully ensured by the principal penalty," the decision states, "without the accessory penalty being able to fulfill a constitutionally justified adjuvant function."
The court did carve out a narrow exception: Citizenship revocation may be permissible for crimes involving state security, terrorism, or terrorism financing, where the offense itself reflects a severing of allegiance to the Portuguese nation.
Parliamentary Arithmetic and Political Fallout
The decree passed the Portugal Assembly with more than two-thirds support, technically sufficient under Article 279 of the Portuguese Constitution to override a constitutional veto—a mechanism never before invoked in the Republic's history. If reconfirmed by the same margin after presidential veto, the President would be constitutionally obligated to promulgate the law within 8 days.
But that path is now politically treacherous. Hugo Soares, parliamentary leader of the PSD, signaled caution, stating the party does not wish to "provoke any institutional conflict" and will analyze the court's reasoning before deciding next steps. The CDS-PP, PSD's coalition partner, is expected to align with this prudent stance.
André Ventura, president of Chega—Portugal's right-wing populist party and the decree's most vocal champion—took the opposite tack. Speaking to reporters, Ventura called the ruling a "defeat for Chega" but accused the court of substituting "the will of the majority of the population and the legislator" with judicial activism. He vowed to seek reconfirmation and, failing that, proposed a national referendum on the question: Should naturalized citizens convicted of terrorism, rape, murder, or kidnapping lose Portuguese nationality?
Chega has now tabled a constitutional amendment to explicitly authorize nationality revocation for serious crimes, a longer-term strategy that would require broad cross-party consensus.
The Socialist Party (PS), which initiated both constitutional challenges with petitions signed by 51 deputies, welcomed the decision. Parliamentary leader Eurico Brilhante Dias described the decree as "pure populist propaganda" and accused the AD coalition of "legislating against the Constitution and human rights" in partnership with the right. He urged the President of the Republic to veto the decree and expressed hope that "this process has ended after two unanimous vetoes."
What This Means for Residents
Immediate impact: No Portuguese citizen, naturalized or otherwise, will face loss of nationality as a criminal penalty under current law. The existing Portugal Penal Code remains unchanged, with prison sentences, fines, and ancillary penalties (like travel bans or asset forfeiture) remaining the exclusive sanctions for criminal conduct.
For naturalized citizens: While the decree targeted only dual nationals—avoiding statelessness prohibited under the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness—its repeated rejection by the court reinforces that Portuguese nationality, once conferred, carries equal constitutional weight regardless of origin. The principle of equality enshrined in Article 13 of the Portuguese Constitution has been upheld twice.
For the immigration debate: The controversy underscores Portugal's ongoing struggle to balance public security concerns—especially following high-profile crimes involving foreign-born offenders—with its commitment to liberal democratic norms. The court's insistence that only crimes reflecting "rupture with national belonging" (terrorism, treason) justify citizenship loss sets a high bar that violent but apolitical crimes do not meet.
For legal certainty: The ruling suggests that any future attempt to legislate nationality loss must either amend the Constitution itself or confine the penalty to crimes explicitly targeting the state. Anything broader risks another unanimous rejection.
International Context
Portugal's debate mirrors wider European tensions. France has proposed stricter deportation rules for non-citizens convicted of serious crimes, while Italy permits automatic loss of citizenship for citizens who enlist in foreign militaries or accept foreign public office during wartime. Germany focuses primarily on voluntary acquisition of foreign nationality as grounds for loss, rather than criminal penalties. Most EU member states allow revocation only for fraud in obtaining citizenship.
The Portugal Observatory for Migration has noted that the decree represents a shift toward "conditional citizenship," raising questions about compatibility with rule-of-law principles. By European standards, Portugal's proposal was unusually broad, encompassing non-political violent crimes that other jurisdictions treat purely as penal matters.
Next Steps
The decree now returns to President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, who is constitutionally obligated to veto it following the court's ruling and send it back to the Assembly. Legislators then face three options:
Expunge the unconstitutional provisions and pass a narrower version limited to state security crimes.
Reformulate the decree to address the court's equality concerns—though legal experts doubt this is feasible without discriminating between citizens.
Reconfirm the decree with a two-thirds majority, forcing the President to promulgate it despite constitutional defects—an option that would spark a historic institutional crisis.
Hugo Soares' public reluctance to force a confrontation suggests the first or second path is more likely. Chega's call for reconfirmation or referendum may resonate with voters frustrated by judicial constraints on parliamentary sovereignty, but it lacks the procedural votes to proceed unilaterally.
The Portugal Ministry of the Presidency, through Minister António Leitão Amaro, had previously downplayed the court's concerns, arguing the decree corrected "ideological bias" in existing nationality law. That position now appears untenable without constitutional reform.
For now, the status quo holds: Portuguese citizenship remains irrevocable except in cases of fraud, voluntary renunciation, or the narrow category of state security crimes the court has indicated may pass muster. Whether this represents the final word or merely the prelude to a constitutional amendment battle will depend on how much political capital the center-right coalition is willing to spend on a measure the judiciary has now rejected twice, unanimously, in less than half a year.
