That the Supreme Court now allows itself to question the regularization of immigrants carried out by the current government of Spain (the deadline to apply for it ended this Tuesday) tells us several things. The main one, that the high court, with a majority of magistrates from the PP and Vox, is not only well decided to continue the fight for the salvation of Spain through the persecution of left-wing corrupt individuals, or suspects, or those pointed out (“they must have done something”), but has also decided to challenge the policies of a democratically elected government. This is nothing new, but rather —we said yesterday— we have known this at least since the Constitutional Court's ruling against the Statute of Catalonia. Now, however, with Catalan independence movement undone, scattered and poisoned with discourses of hatred and supremacism/racism (defeated, therefore), they no longer need to deal with what the magistrates would call “territorial issues”. Instead, they now prefer to intervene in immigration policy: at every moment, their debate.The Supreme Court's “doubts” regarding the immigrant regularization process are raised by the requests submitted by two autonomous communities, Aragon and the Valencian Community, governed by the PP and Vox, or by the PP with the support of Vox. These are communities with rulers who maintain — they also say this in the Balearic Islands, for example — that the regularization of immigrants will cause employment and housing problems for Spaniards. It seems that mass tourism and uncontrolled speculation do not cause these kinds of problems; on the other hand, giving legal recognition to people who already live here — subjected to labor exploitation and immersed in the underground economy — does cause problems. Or perhaps it is that these parties have also realized that anti-immigration, hate, and racism/supremacism discourses indeed have a great following nowadays and they stubbornly embrace them. And with the legal certainty of the Supreme Court, which gladly accompanies them on this journey.To do so, the Supreme Court looks, and this is new, towards Europe. Traditionally, Spanish justice distrusts and speaks ill of European courts, and has blamed, insulted, and ridiculed them every time they have ruled in favor of separatists or exiled rappers. Now, however, they seek complicity and shelter under the protection of the EU's Migration and Asylum Pact, which came into force on June 12 and is one of the most shameful documents the Union has produced in its entire history. It can be attempted to justify with whatever subterfuges one wishes, but it is the EU giving itself the green light to create detention camps where immigrants will be abandoned to an uncertain and often fatal fate; yes: in non-EU countries, so that it is not seen so much. The Supreme Court uses this to deepen the drift of the Spanish state, according to which the courts take the reins of government as and when they see fit. The Migration and Asylum Pact (the name is already a sarcasm) is, for its part, a giant step for the EU towards its self-destruction.

The final stretch of the extraordinary regularization process for migrants promoted by the Spanish government is coming to an end with an open judicial front. Given the doubts raised by the Supreme Court about the measure's compatibility with European law, experts consulted by ARA agree that it is unlikely to have immediate effects on the applications submitted. While the legal world points to possible shortcomings in the processing, organizations and groups that have helped migrants with paperwork – often fighting against misinformation and lack of resources and suffering from administrative collapse– are now focusing all their efforts on ensuring that applicants can complete the procedures before the deadline expires this Tuesday.

As if the Spanish government didn't have enough open fronts with the justice system, another unexpected one has now opened in the administrative chamber of the Supreme Court against the extraordinary regularization of immigrants, which ends this very 30th and has already exceeded one million applications. The Supreme Court, responding to the appeals filed by the Valencian and Aragonese governments, both from the PP, now questions the legality of the regularization based on European regulations. This new judicial blow to the Sánchez government is signed by Carlos Lesmes, a conservative magistrate who was president of the CGPJ and the TS for 5 years; Wenceslao Olea, who was a member of the CGPJ at the proposal of the PP, and Fernando Román García, who was Secretary of State for Justice under Mariano Rajoy.

The Supreme Court expresses doubts about the legality of the extraordinary regularization of migrants that the Spanish government has promoted and which ends this Tuesday. In two rulings to which ARA has had access, the high court questions the fit of the decree approved by Pedro Sánchez's executive within European law and gives five days to the parties involved against the process – in this case the government of Aragon and that of the Valencian Community, both from the PP – to pronounce on the suitability of raising a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), based in Luxembourg.

"An organic, organized, and continuous corruption from the highest instances of political power." By unanimous decision, the seven judges of the Supreme Court have upheld the sentence requested by the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office and have sentenced José Luis Ábalos to 24 years and three months in prison in the first trial of the mask case. The former strongman of Pedro Sánchez for three years in the PSOE and in Moncloa, and who has been in Soto del Real for seven months, has ended up convicted of belonging to a criminal organization, bribery, influence peddling, and embezzlement.

Today marks seven years since the trial at the Supreme Court against the main leaders responsible for organizing the October 1st referendum concluded. That judicial case, which culminated in severe sentences for sedition, embezzlement, and disobedience, marked a before and after in Catalan and Spanish politics. Also these days, as a result of the PSOE's arithmetic needs and the demands of the independence parties, it has been two years since the approval of the amnesty law, which, although it was approved with an absolute majority in the Congress of Deputies and has the backing of the Constitutional Court, a part of its recipients continue to wait for it to be applied to them, when it is a fully valid law.The debate on the amnesty was intense. For months it was discussed whether it was convenient, timely, and fair. Its constitutionality was questioned and appeals were filed to try to prevent its entry into force. All this could be considered part of the legitimate democratic game. But once Congress approved the law and the Constitutional Court validated its essential aspects, any discussion about its legal legitimacy should have been resolved, but the Supreme Court has maintained the challenge by not applying the law, stretching the gum of embezzlement to the point of maintaining that there was personal enrichment, even though everyone knows that there was no appropriation of public resources, nor personal enrichment, nor any individual economic benefit.Two years after the amnesty law, Carles Puigdemont, Oriol Junqueras, Raül Romeva, Dolors Bassa, Jordi Turull, Lluís Puig and Toni Comín continue without fully recognizing the effects of the norm. In the case of the exiles, who have not even been tried or convicted, the Supreme Court has already ruled out applying the amnesty to them. In the case of the leaders who were convicted, the same court has opted to indefinitely postpone the decision with the argument that it is necessary to await the ruling, which has been pending for months, from the European instances on the preliminary questions raised. And in this way, days pass, years push.The criminal chamber of the Supreme Court and a good part of the elites of the judiciary have not digested that the sentence of the Procés trial may end up as a dead letter. They experience it as an institutional humiliation and have already made it clear that they will twist the interpretation of the amnesty law until it says the opposite of what is written. Their interpretation is so forced that even some female magistrate made a dissenting separate opinion openly asking for the law to be applied.  The original sin of the amnesty is that it renders meaningless a ruling that had been presented as the State's definitive response to the independence challenge, and the legislator's decision alters that narrative and opens a new political stage that some do not seem willing to accept. The consequence of this is worrying because the Supreme Court acts as a counter-power, as if it had the capacity to decide which laws deserve to be applied and which can be subjected to permanent reinterpretation until they are rendered inoperative. This is an attitude that exceeds the proper functions of the judiciary and erodes one of the basic foundations of any democracy: respect for the will expressed by the citizens' representatives.When a court stops applying a law because it does not agree with its effects, the problem is no longer legal but political. The insistence that Puigdemont cannot return from exile without going to prison and that Junqueras and the rest of the leaders remain disqualified makes it very clear that part of the judiciary prioritizes its ideology over its duty to apply the laws. Blocking the amnesty with unfounded pretexts is, frankly, a manifestation of authoritarianism incompatible with the elementary rules of the rule of law.But as serious as this is the silence of many political leaders. Too many leaders seem comfortable with a situation where laws are only enforceable when they align with their ideological preferences. When the rule of law is a tool to pursue adversaries and not a guarantee to protect rights, it is a cardboard rule of law. And this is an anomaly that transcends separatism. Because when a democracy allows its courts to disobey the spirit and purpose of a law approved by the parliamentary chamber and validated by the Constitutional Court, the damage is not only to those affected. The damage is to democracy itself.

The Supreme Court has put a stop to the government of Isabel Díaz Ayuso and Vox, and has rejected temporarily paralyzing the extraordinary regularization of immigrantswhich began a month and a half ago. The Contentious-Administrative Chamber decided this after five hearings held this morning, which served for the Madrid executive, the far-right party, and three ultra associations to launch attacks against the regularization process promoted by the Spanish government after an agreement with Podemos. In one of them, the State Attorney announced that as of May 21st, 549,596 applications had been submitted and 91,905 had begun to be processed. Those who passed the first filter received a provisional authorization to work. In many cases, these were people who had jobs: they were working illegally and now do so legally, or they have found work elsewhere. "We are not talking about entry, but about a radically different issue. We are talking about a group of people who were in Spain, who can prove five months of residence, and who had deficits in accessing rights," argued the State Attorney. He also highlighted that the regularization serves to "respond to labor market challenges" and seeks to offer "effective and rapid integration" to people who have "roots" and an "inseparable bond of coexistence" in Spain.

The Supreme Court considers that people with a "particularly close connection" have the right to judicially intervene against the decision of a patient who wishes to receive euthanasia. It is the majority, but not unanimous, response of the magistrates of the High Court after addressing this Tuesday the debate on whether relatives have the right to judicially intervene to prevent a relative from receiving euthanasia.

The Supreme Court considers that people with a "particularly close connection" have the right to judicially intervene against the decision of a patient who wishes to receive euthanasia. This is the majority, but not unanimous, response of the magistrates of the High Court after addressing this Tuesday the debate on whether family members have the right to judicially intervene to prevent a relative from receiving euthanasia.

José Luis Ábalos finally declares this morning in the trial for the mask case before the Supreme Court. The former Minister of Transport, who the judge has kept in preventive detention for almost half a year, appears as an investigated person after two morning sessions in which the court had to modify the initial schedule that set the interrogation of the former socialist leader for last Wednesday.

"A high-profile case judged a long time ago with a clear conviction." This is how José Luis Ábalos has summarized the face mask case, for which he faces a sentence of between 24 and 30 years in prison. The former Minister of Transport, who has been in Soto del Real for five months, has been the last of the accused to testify, after Víctor de Aldama and Koldo García did so last week. The former strongman of Pedro Sánchez in Moncloa and Ferraz testified for almost six hours and, exhibiting meticulous knowledge of the Civil Guard's reports, denied having received money from Aldama: "To say that it was handed to me in person seems gross. I understand why it's being done. I tell you no, and there is absolutely no evidence." He also criticized the Civil Guard's "permanent bias" and denounced a "certain intentionality" throughout the investigation: "I am struck by the eagerness to implicate me and to find something.

Day of revelations and denials at the Supreme Court. After Victor de Aldama's explosive statement, which shot left and right to try to splash Pedro Sánchez and question the PSOE's financing, it is now the turn of Koldo García, who was an advisor to José Luis Ábalos in the Ministry of Transport and for whom the Prosecutor's Office is seeking nineteen and a half years in prison. "Ask me absolutely everything to try to prove my innocence," the prosecutor urged right at the start. And, after five and a half hours, he has resolved one of the great questions of the trial: what are "chistorras"? A Guardia Civil report suspected that it was the code name to refer to 500 euro banknotes. And Koldo García, when questioned by his lawyer, confirmed it, despite the fact that last October, in a couple of television interviews, he stated that the chistorras were "sausages".

Key day in the mask case trial at the Supreme Court. After ten sessions, it is the turn of the declarations of the three defendants: José Luis Ábalos, Koldo García and Víctor de Aldama. The only one who could be interrogated this Wednesday was the businessman and alleged facilitator of the plot, who agreed to collaborate with justice a year and a half ago when he was in preventive detention –"what a invention", replied Pedro Sánchez– and for whom the Prosecutor's Office requests a much lower penalty than for the rest of the defendants. Just as he did at that initial moment of the investigation, he has decided to elaborate, stretch the blanket and point directly to Pedro Sánchez. Without providing evidence and relying solely on his word, he has given meticulous details to try to accredit his privileged access to the spheres of power, has detailed the roadmap of the alleged corruption and has expressed "remorse". "If there is a hierarchy of a criminal organization, Sánchez is in the first echelon", he said. "I was told that the president knew everything", he added in a statement that lasted more than six and a half hours.

Five hours after the session of the trial against José Luis Ábalos, seated among the members of the court, ended, Manuel Marchena solemnly entered the noble hall of the Royal Academy of Jurisprudence and Legislation of Spain to be admitted as a member. A protocolary act in which, surrounded by the most prominent names in Spanish justice, he delivered a 45-minute speech on the incorporation of electronic data into criminal proceedings. Listening to him – and taking some photos with their mobile phones – was the spokesperson for Justice of the PP, María Jesús Moro. She arrived alone with ten minutes to spare before the event began and, while looking for her seat, received a particular welcome. Julián Sánchez Melgar – who is also judging José Luis Ábalos and who was State Attorney General under Mariano Rajoy after the death of José Manuel Maza – touched her shoulder to greet her. After a brief conversation, she went to sit down. And – like the entire room – she applauded Manuel Marchena when he finished his speech and when he received the insignia that accredits him as a member.

One of the missions of the Supreme Court in the first three days of the trial against José Luis Ábalos has been to reconstruct the alleged cronyism of two women close to the then Minister of Transport and former organization secretary of the PSOE. They are Jessica Rodríguez, who was his partner for a year and a half; and Claudia Montes, with whom he maintained a "virtual" relationship. The first has admitted that she was receiving payment without going to work – a total of 44,000 euros at Ineco and Tragsatec–. The second woman claims that she did fulfill her duties at Logirail, although others dispute this. Amidst contradictions and labor disputes, several witnesses have tried to shed light on this this week at the high court. "I had a contract, but I wasn't actively working," Jessica Rodríguez acknowledged on Tuesday. Marino Turiel, José Luis Ábalos' lawyer, suspects there is a hidden agreement between her and Víctor de Aldama: "It is very clear that there is a pact and an agreement".

The key witness in the third session of the trial against José Luis Ábalos was Carmen Pano. And her statement followed the script: as she said at the Audiencia Nacional, during the investigation at the Supreme Court and at the Senate's investigation committee, she reiterated and to the Senate's investigation committee, But there was a second delivery that raises more doubts. Carmen Pano first said that the "operation" was that Claudio Rivas made transfers to her accounts and she withdrew the money in cash. And it wasn't until half an hour later that she admitted that in the second case she didn't directly withdraw the money from the bank, but rather a certain Lolo, a "worker or friend" of Claudio Rivas, brought it to her home. She didn't get to count it, but – in theory – there were also 45,000 euros. She took it back to Aldama's office, but later he called her "quite angry" and told her that 10,000 euros were missing. "Therefore, I deduce that there were 35,000 euros," the businesswoman acknowledged. This is a point that only came to light at the end of her statement, after spending a long time equating the two deliveries and without having mentioned this unforeseen event.

In the coming weeks, 34 Supreme Court magistrates will decide whether anyone can judicially intervene against the decision of an adult person who has medical approval to receive euthanasia. The Prosecutor's Office has already conveyed its position to the court: it believes that close family can do so as long as they have an "intense bond" with the affected person, not just a biological relationship. The response that the full Supreme Court eventually gives will set a precedent in a debate that has been open in the courts for a few months and has gained prominence especially with the case of Noelia Castillo, the young woman from Garraf who received assisted death at the end of March, after 20 months of judicial proceedings. The case that the Supreme Court will hear is another, that of Francesc: a 55-year-old man who, after three strokes and a heart attack, suffers serious sequelae in his mobility and speech. Since July 2024, his euthanasia has had judicial approval as well as medical approval and that of the Commission of Guarantee and Evaluation of Catalonia (CGAC), but it has been stalled by a judicial appeal from his father. In fact, his case is what motivated the resolution of the Superior Court of Justice (TSJC) in which the magistrates validated that a family can take an euthanasia approved by doctors to court. The Generalitat, which represents Francesc's interests, appealed against this resolution of the TSJC and, therefore, the Supreme Court will now review it after evaluating the arguments of the administration and those of the Public Prosecutor's Office.

“An agreement that had as its object the future commission of crimes as opportunities to commit them arose”. After a year and a half of investigation, 30 years in prison. On the table will be nine crimes, including membership in a criminal organization, bribery, influence peddling, and embezzlement.

The Supreme Court has taken a decisive step and will try José Luis Ábalos, Koldo García, and Víctor de Aldama within a month for the purchase of medical supplies during the pandemic. The high court unanimously rejected all preliminary motions filed by the former Minister of Transport and his former advisor, who will appear in court starting Tuesday, April 7, the day after the Kitchen case trial begins against Jorge Fernández Díaz and his top officials at the Ministry of the Interior during Mariano Rajoy's administration. Three weeks after the Preliminary view of the masks caseThe Supreme Court has closed the door on one of Ábalos and Koldo's main demands: that the case return to the National Court as a result of the Ábalos resigns from his position as a deputyThe 138-page interlocutory ruling reiterates that once a judge opens oral proceedings against a member of parliament—as happened in December, when Ábalos was still a member—the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is "immune to the loss of protected status" and argues that this is a moment that "cannot be left to chance or depend on the whim or will of the accused." It also maintains that the Supreme Court's 2014 ruling—which the defense teams of Ábalos and Koldo challenged—served to "establish a clear criterion in the face of the confusing legal framework." Koldo and Aldama, who have never held protected status, will also be tried by the Supreme Court due to their "inexplicable material connection" with the events under investigation. Furthermore, the seven Supreme Court justices challenge the defense's pride and warn them that granting their request would have "onerous consequences" for the two defendants, who "would see their case delayed." sine die"The trial. The prosecution." He is asking for 24 years in prison. Ábalos received a 19.5-year sentence, Koldo García a 19.5-year sentence, and Aldama a 7-year sentence. They are accused of five crimes: membership in a criminal organization, bribery, embezzlement, influence peddling, and insider trading.

One of US President Donald Trump's key initiatives – perhaps the most important along with mass deportations – It has not passed the Supreme Court's filterAnd this, despite controlling an organization with a clear conservative majority. However, without questioning whether or not it is necessary to impose tariffs on third countries, the justices of the nation's highest court, by a 6-3 vote, consider that Trump overstepped his bounds by imposing tariffs on imports without congressional approval. They highlight one of the shortcomings of the leader of the world's leading power. And it is not the trade deficit he claims to want to combat, but rather the democratic one, by resorting to a law (IEEPA) that gives the president free rein to address "unusual and extraordinary threats" during national emergencies. The justices interpreted that the IEEPA "does not authorize tariffs imposed through executive orders."