Spain's top court orders Franco family to hand back Romanesque statues
The statues were once part of the 12th-century "Door of Glory", a portico marking the entrance to Santiago's cathedral, which is widely considered a masterpiece of mediaeval art and which is where the famed pilgrim Camino (Way) ends.
The works were removed during restoration works on the cathedral's facade and purchased by the city in 1948.
Franco's wife, Carmen Polo, expressed interest in them during a 1952 visit to the city, after which they were sent to the Meiras palace - the dictator's summer residence.
"Motivated by a desire to please the wife of the head of state", Santiago's then-mayor facilitated their transfer to Meiras, the ruling said.
The court decided that despite Franco's family possessing the statues for a long time, they still belonged to the city of Santiago.
Franco's descendants argued that the purchase by the city was never completed and claimed the statues were acquired through an antiquarian, citing an oral account passed down within the family.
Francis Franco, the dictator's grandson, did not reply to a request for comment when contacted by Reuters.
Franco rose to power through a military coup against the Republican government in July 1936 and ruled the country for almost 40 years, until his death in 1975. Fifty years later, his legacy still divides Spanish society.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
32 minutes ago
- Newsweek
White House Responds After Judge Blocks Trump Birthright Citizenship Order
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The White House issued a defiant statement on Friday after a judge blocked President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, marking the third time a court has done so since a critical Supreme Court ruling in June. Why It Matters Trump's executive action seeks to prevent children born on U.S. soil from automatically receiving citizenship if neither parent was an American citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of birth. The Supreme Court in June blocked judges from issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump's order, though it left an exception for class-action lawsuits, which multiple plaintiffs subsequently filed. President Donald Trump faces the media after arriving at Prestwick Airport in Ayrshire, Scotland, on July 25. President Donald Trump faces the media after arriving at Prestwick Airport in Ayrshire, Scotland, on July 25. Jacquelyn Martin/AP What To Know U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled on Friday that the nationwide injunction he granted to more than a dozen states who sued over the order is still in effect because "no workable, narrower alternative" would give the plaintiffs relief. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told the Associated Press that the administration expects to be "vindicated on appeal." "These courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment," Jackson told the news outlet. Lawyers representing the Trump administration argued in the case that Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction. But Sorokin pushed back, taking aim at the Trump administration for failing to explain how a narrower injunction would work in practice. "That is, they have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes," Sorokin wrote. "In fact, they have characterized such questions as irrelevant to the task the Court is now undertaking. The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic." The New Jersey federal judge also wrote that he has "no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question" of whether Trump's order is constitutional. "But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional." Sorokin's is the third court to block or uphold a block on Trump's order since last month's Supreme Court ruling that carved out an exception for the class-action challenges. Earlier this week, a U.S. appeals court ruled that Trump's executive order was unconstitutional and upheld a lower-court decision that blocked its nationwide enforcement. A federal judge in New Hampshire also blocked the order from going into effect nationwide in a ruling earlier this month. The judge in that case, Joseph LaPlante, paused his decision to give the administration a chance to appeal. But it did not do so, meaning his order went into effect last week. What People Are Saying Sorokin said in his 23-page ruling on Friday: "Despite the defendants' chosen path, the Court — aided substantially by the plaintiffs' meticulous factual and legal submissions — undertook the review required of it by [June's Supreme Court ruling] and considered anew whether its original order swept too broadly." He added: "After careful consideration of the law and the facts, the Court answers that question in the negative." New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who led the case before Sorokin, said in a statement: "American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history. The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen." What Happens Next The case will almost certainly make its way back up to the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority and has handed the Trump administration more than a dozen critical victories so far this year.
Wall Street Journal
3 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
California's Cage-Free Regulatory Scramble
Regarding your editorial 'California's Chickens Go to Court' (July 20): California has prohibited the sale of cruelly produced eggs since 2010. Its current standard, Proposition 12, was enacted by voters and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The federal Egg Products Inspection Act regulates packaging and labeling—not animal welfare directly. It doesn't pre-empt state laws like Prop 12, which address humane treatment on farms. That's why several other states—such as Colorado, Michigan and Utah—have passed similar laws without legal conflict.
Fox News
3 hours ago
- Fox News
Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship blocked by another federal appeals judge in latest ruling
A federal appeals judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship for the children of people in the country illegally or temporarily. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled that a nationwide injunction on the Trump administration's effort to end birthright citizenship that he issued earlier this year and that was granted to more than a dozen states can stand. Sorokin said the ruling was an exception to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limited lower courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions. The issue is expected to return to the Supreme Court. Trump and the administration "are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question," Sorokin wrote in his ruling. "But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional." The Trump administration has argued that children born in the U.S. to parents in the country illegally and temporarily are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship. Trump signed the birthright citizenship executive order, along with a slew of other orders, on his first day in office in January. On Wednesday, the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also affirmed the lower court's nationwide injunction, and, earlier this month, a New Hampshire federal judge issued a ruling prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. Sorokin disagreed with the Trump administration's argument that the Supreme Court's ruling warranted a narrower ruling. The plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit argued that Trump's executive order is unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship, and it also threatens millions of dollars in state funding for "essential" health insurance services contingent on citizenship status.
