A federal court in Paraná ruled that part of Decree DNU 366/2025, which tightened citizenship rules, is unconstitutional. The court held that only Congress can modify such laws. The ruling applies to a single case but sets an important precedent for migrants.
Federal Court No. 1 of Paraná has issued an important ruling for the migrant community in Argentina. The court declared unconstitutional a portion of Emergency and Necessity Decree (DNU) 366/2025, which introduced changes to migration rules and the citizenship system.
DNU 366/2025 was published earlier this year and modified various aspects of the migration and citizenship framework, including requirements for obtaining residency and procedures for acquiring Argentine citizenship. The most controversial section was “Title III,” which sought to reform Citizenship Law No. 346.
The judge ruled that the changes related to citizenship procedures do not comply with the Argentine Constitution. The main arguments were:
1. The Constitution grants the power to amend laws exclusively to Congress. The changes introduced by the DNU exceeded the authority of the Executive Branch.
2. DNUs may only be issued in situations of true emergency and urgency, when Congress is unable to legislate effectively. In this case, Congress was in session and there was no extraordinary situation to justify the use of a decree.
3. The decree introduced substantial alterations to the citizenship regime, including transferring key functions to the National Migration Directorate and tightening residency requirements. According to the court, such reforms must be debated and approved through the regular legislative process.
The ruling applies only to the specific individual who filed the case. However, it sets a legal precedent that may influence similar court actions in the future.
The decision reinforces that changes to the citizenship regime cannot be implemented through a DNU and must be addressed by Congress.
DNU 366/2025 made the rules for proving residency, maintaining legal stay, and applying for citizenship significantly more demanding. Its partial annulment offers hope for preserving or restoring a more accessible system.
The decision also demonstrates that restrictive administrative measures affecting migrants’ rights can be successfully challenged in court.
The ruling of the Federal Court of Paraná marks an important moment in the discussion on migration reform. It highlights the limits of emergency decrees and emphasizes the need for major changes in migration and citizenship laws to be debated within the legislative branch.