The Argentine judiciary has annulled a decree issued by President Javier Milei that sought to restrict the granting of Argentine citizenship to foreign nationals, ruling that the measure exceeded executive powers and violated constitutional limits, according to a decision issued by the Cámara Nacional Electoral.
The ruling, delivered on Tuesday, invalidates Decree 366 signed by Javier Milei in May of last year. The measure formed part of a broader anti-immigration policy discourse in which the government associated foreign nationals with criminal activity. At the time of its announcement, government spokesperson Manuel Adorni stated, “Argentina no será tierra fértil para la llegada de los delincuentes,” in reference to the reforms.
The annulled decree sought to tighten immigration controls, impose stricter requirements for entry and residence, and restrict access to public health and education services for non-permanent residents. It also transferred authority over the granting of Argentine citizenship from the federal judiciary to the National Directorate of Migration, an agency under the executive branch.
The case was brought before the courts by civil organizations and affected individuals. The ruling that led to the annulment stemmed from a petition filed by a Chinese national who has resided in Argentina since 2015 and has no criminal record. Despite meeting requirements established under citizenship law, the individual was denied residency and faced deportation proceedings under the contested policy.
In their decision, judges Daniel Bejas and Alberto Dalla Vía of the Cámara Nacional Electoral determined that the decree was issued in “excess of the powers conferred by the National Constitution upon the Executive Branch.” They further noted that citizenship is closely linked to political rights, including the right to vote, and emphasized that the Constitution prohibits the president from legislating on electoral matters or issues related to political parties through executive decrees.
The court also rejected the government’s argument that the decree was justified by necessity and urgency. According to the ruling, the circumstances cited by the executive did not meet the threshold of “rigorous exceptionality and urgency,” and instead reflected considerations of “opportunity, merit or convenience,” which are typically reserved for legislative deliberation in Congress.
The government of Javier Milei may appeal the ruling before the Supreme Court of Justice. The decision comes a week after the same court issued another ruling against the executive, ordering compliance with a university financing law approved by Congress, marking a further judicial check on recent government actions.
