Introduction:
The Tribunal of Palermo, (G.O.P. Carmela Caranna), issued this ruling on 21 April 2026, recognizing Italian citizenship jure sanguinis to a US-born applicant. The case was decided under the framework introduced by Decree-Law No. 36/2025, commonly referred to as the Tajani Decree, as converted by Law No. 74/2025.
Outcome:
The Court recognized Italian citizenship jure sanguinis to the applicant. Legal costs were borne by the applicant.
View the Judgment:
English version
Challenge:
The Italian ancestor was a woman born in Sicily in the late 1800s who emigrated to the United States and married a US citizen in 1903, before the Cable Act of 1922. Under US law applicable at that time, marriage to a US citizen could result in automatic acquisition of US citizenship by the foreign wife without an individual voluntary naturalization act. The citizenship claim was filed before the Tribunal of Palermo on 16 May 2025, after the 27 March 2025 cut-off introduced by Decree-Law No. 36/2025. Because of that filing date, letters a), a-bis), and b) of Article 1 were not available. The relevant path was instead letters c)/d). The decision does not expressly analyze the relationship between Article 3-bis and automatic acquisition of foreign citizenship by marriage. The reasoning is brief and document-based, and does not develop a broader doctrine on pre-1922 US marital naturalization.
Action:
The court file included the marriage certificate showing the 1903 marriage to a US citizen. The defense also filed a NARA letter showing no record of voluntary naturalization. In the motivation, the court refers to the ancestor as someone who had not voluntarily naturalized. On this basis, recognition of Italian citizenship jure sanguinis was granted despite the documented pre-Cable Act marital citizenship issue. The interaction between pre-1922 US marital naturalization, Italian citizenship by descent, and Decree-Law No. 36/2025 remains unsettled. Later case law, including Constitutional Court Ruling No. 63/2026 of 30 April 2026, may affect how similar cases are analyzed going forward.
For the privacy of our clients, all names are fictional, and any identifying details in the judgements have been obscured.