Spain's top court upholds amnesty law for Catalan separatists
By Joan Faus
BARCELONA (Reuters) -Spain's Constitutional Court on Thursday upheld core elements of a disputed amnesty law enacted by the Socialist government after Catalonia's failed 2017 secession bid, under which more than 300 people have been pardoned.
"This is magnificent news for Spain," Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez told reporters in Brussels. He reiterated his view that the amnesty served "to guarantee Spain's unity as well as our development and prosperity and coexistence between citizens and regions".
The amnesty was agreed in 2023 between Sanchez's Socialist Party and two Catalan separatist parties in exchange for their support of his minority coalition in a parliamentary vote that allowed him to stay on as prime minister.
The Constitutional Court's ruling offers some relief for Sanchez while allegations of corruption involving senior officials ensnarl his Socialist Party.
"Amnesty is not banned by the Constitution, and its adoption, when it responds to an exceptional situation and a legitimate public interest, may be constitutionally admissible," ruled the court, where a majority of judges had been nominated by the Socialists.
The conservative opposition has argued the legislation is unconstitutional and was passed solely as a Socialist manoeuvre to stay in power.
The top court ruling, which stems from an appeal lodged by the conservative People's Party, does not directly benefit former Catalan separatist leader Carles Puigdemont, who lives in self-imposed exile in Belgium.
The judge handling Puigdemont's case has said the amnesty does not apply to him as he is also being sued for embezzlement, an accusation he denies.
Puigdemont has appealed the judge's decision, but the Constitutional Court will not rule on the matter until later this year or next, according to a court spokesperson.
Puigdemont was Catalonia's head of government in 2017 when the region unilaterally declared independence from Spain, prompting Madrid to impose direct control.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
At Supreme Court, steady wins for conservative states and Trump's claims of executive power
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court term that ended Friday will not be remembered for blockbuster rulings like those recent years that struck down the right to abortion and college affirmative action. The justices scaled back their docket this year and spent much of their energy focused on deciding fast-track appeals from President Trump. His administration's lawyers complained too many judges were standing in the way of Trump's agenda. On Friday, the court's conservatives agreed to rein in district judges, a procedural victory for Trump. What's been missing so far, however, is a clear ruling on whether the president has abided by the law or overstepped his authority in the U.S. Constitution. On the final two days of term, the court's conservative majority provided big wins for Republican-leaning states, religious parents and Trump. The justices gave states more authority to prohibit medical treatments for transgender teens, to deny Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood clinics and to enforce age-verification laws for online porn sites. Each came with the familiar 6-3 split, with the Republican appointees siding with the GOP-led states, while the Democratic appointees dissented. These rulings, while significant, were something short of nationwide landmark decisions — celebrated victories for the Republican half of the nation but having no direct or immediate effect on Democratic-led states. California lawmakers are not likely to pass measures to restrict gender-affirming care or to prohibit women on Medicaid from obtaining birth control, pregnancy testing or medical screenings at a Planned Parenthood clinic. The new decisions echoed the Dobbs ruling three years ago that struck down Roe vs. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion. As the conservative justices noted, the decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health did not outlaw abortion nationwide. However, it did allow conservative states to do so. Since then, 17 Republican-led states in the South and Midwest have adopted new laws to prohibit most or all abortions. On this front, the court's decisions reflect a 'federalism,' or states-rights style of conservatism, that was dominant in decades past under President Reagan and two of the court's conservative leaders, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Both were Arizona Republicans (and in O'Connor's case, a former state legislator) who came to the court with that view that Washington holds too much power and wields too much control over states and local governments. With the nation sharply divided along partisan lines, today's conservative court could be praised or defended for freeing states to make different choices on the 'culture wars.' The other big winner so far this year has been Trump and his broad claims of executive power. Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has asserted he has total authority to run federal agencies, cut their spending and fire most of their employees, all without the approval of Congress, which created and funded the agencies. He has also claimed the authority to impose tariffs of any amount on any country and also change his mind a few days later. He has dispatched National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles against the wishes of the governor and the mayor. He has asserted he can punish universities and law firms. He has claimed he can revise by executive order the 14th Amendment and its birthright citizenship clause. So far, the Supreme Court has not ruled squarely on Trump's broad assertions of power. But the justices have granted a series of emergency appeals from Trump's lawyers and set aside lower court orders that blocked his initiatives from taking effect. The theme has been that judges are out of line, not the president. Friday's ruling limiting nationwide injunctions set out that view in a 26-page opinion. The conservatives agreed that some judges have overstepped their authority by ruling broadly based on a single lawsuit. The justices have yet to rule on whether the president has overstepped his power. Justice Amy Coney Barrett summed up the dispute in a revealing comment responding to a dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' she wrote. Missing from all this is the earlier strain of conservatism that opposed concentrated power in Washington — and in this instance, in one person. Last year offered a hint of what was to come. A year ago, the court ended its term by declaring the president is immune from being prosecuted for his official acts while in the White House. That decision, in Trump vs. United States, shielded the former and soon-to-be president from the criminal law. The Constitution does not mention any such immunity for ex-presidents charged with crimes, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said a shield of immunity was necessary to 'enable the the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.' Since returning to the White House, Trump has not been accused of exercising 'undue caution.' Instead, he appears to have viewed the court's opinion as confirming his unchecked power as the nation's chief executive. Trump advisors say that because the president was elected, he has a mandate and the authority to put his priorities and policies into effect. But the Supreme Court's conservatives did not take that view when President Biden took office promising to take action on climate change and to reduce the burden of student loan debt. In both areas, the Roberts court ruled that the Biden administration had exceeded its authority under the laws passed by Congress. Away from Washington, the most significant decision from this term may be Friday's ruling empowering parents. The six justices on the right ruled parents have a right to remove their children from certain public school classes that offend their religious beliefs. They objected to new storybooks and lessons for young children with LGBTQ+ themes. In recent years, the court, led by Roberts, has championed the 'free exercise' of religion that is protected by the 1st Amendment. In a series of decisions, the court has exempted Catholic schools and charities from laws or regulations on, for example, providing contraceptives to employees. Friday's ruling in a Maryland case extended that religious liberty right into the schools and ruled for Muslim and Catholic parents who objected to new LGBTQ+-themed storybooks. At first, the school board said parents could have their young children 'opt out' of those classes. But when too many parents took the offer, the school board rescinded it. The clash between progressive educators and conservative parents reached the court when the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty appealed on behalf of the parents. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the parents believed the books and stories offended their religious beliefs, and he ordered school authorities to 'to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question is to be used ... and allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.' This decision may have a broader impact than any from this term because it empowers parents nationwide. But it too has limits. It does not require the schools to change their curriculum and their lessons or remove any books from the shelves. The conservatives fell one vote short in a case that could have brought about a far-reaching change in American schools. Split 4 to 4, the justices could not rule to uphold the nation's first publicly funded, church-run charter school. In the past, Roberts had voted to allow students to use state tuition grants in religious schools, but he appeared uncertain about using tax money to operate a church-run school. But that question is almost certain to return to the court. Barrett stepped aside from the Oklahoma case heard in April because friends and former colleagues at the Notre Dame Law School had filed the appeal. But in a future case, she could participate and cast a deciding vote.
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Russian strikes kill 10, injure 50 Ukrainians, as new EU fails to pass new sanctions package
At least 10 Ukrainians were killed and 50 others wounded by Russian strikes over the past day, just after the EU stalled on a new sanctions package hoping to tighten the pressure on the Kremlin. A drone blasted a residential tower block in the port city of Odesa overnight, causing damage to several floors and trapping residents, according to emergency service workers. 4 Two people were killed in 17 injured in the Odesa strike overnight. via REUTERS Advertisement A teacher and her husband died, their bodies found under the debris. Another 17 people were injured, including three children, according to Ukrainian officials. The offensive in Odesa followed a Russian missile attack that killed at least five people and wounded 25 in the city of Samar in Ukraine's south-east on Friday – the second strike there in three days. 4 A Russian drone blasted a residential tower block in Odesa. via REUTERS Advertisement Another two civilians were also killed in their homes during Moscow's strikes on two villages in the Donetsk region Friday, and another man lost his life in a drone attack on the Kherson region. The pummeling of Ukrainian cities and the climbing death toll in the three-year war comes as Kyiv marked Constitution Day on Saturday — with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky taking time to salute the war dead. 'We honored the memory of our defenders whose lives were taken by Russian aggression,' he posted to X. 4 Children were among the injured in the Odesa strike. via REUTERS Advertisement 'We remember their sacrifice. Eternal gratitude and respect to the fallen heroes.' Meanwhile, the European Union extended existing sanctions against Russia for another six months, but the body failed to adopt a new sanctions package due to Slovak opposition Thursday, sources told the Kyiv Independent. A planned18th sanctions package, which would include new restrictions against the Kremlin's energy and banking sectors, is not expected to be approved until next week as negotiations continue. 4 A residential building was damaged after a Russian drone attack in Odesa in which a married couple was killed. AFP via Getty Images Advertisement Slovakia said it was willing to lift its veto once the EU promises to help mitigate the impact of weaning out Russian energy sources, which the country depends on. Last week, the UK and Canada escalated sanctions against Russia's financial, military and energy sectors, following the G7 meeting. 'We are coordinating on sanctions with all G7 nations, as well as with other key global jurisdictions,' Zelensky posted on X Saturday. 'Russia's accountability for this war and our sanctions pressure must be operating at full capacity. They must leave no room for Russia or its cronies to adapt.'
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
Can Thomas Massie survive Trump's swamp machine?
The knives are out for Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). Trump's $500 million political machine has Kentucky's 4th District in its crosshairs, and the establishment media is already writing the congressman's obituary. But they're missing the real story here. This isn't about one maverick politician bucking the system. This is about the soul of the Republican Party, and whether it still has one. Massie stands alone. While his colleagues genuflect before Trump's Truth Social tantrums, Massie asks the hard questions. When the president bypasses Congress to strike Iran, Massie calls it unconstitutional. When Trump demands Republicans rubber-stamp another bloated spending bill, Massie votes no. When the party leadership demands lockstep loyalty, Massie chooses principle. For this, he's branded a 'grandstander' and 'Little Boy' by a man who turned the presidency into performance art. What makes Massie unique in the age of MAGA isn't just that he dissents; it's that he can't be bought. While most Republicans perform ritual acts of submission to stay in Trump's favor, Massie reads the Constitution. In Washington, that's practically a revolutionary act. Massie represents what MAGA was supposed to be before it got hijacked: a rebellion against the permanent ruling class, not a rebranding of it. While Trump's movement descended into ego worship and grievance theater, Massie stayed where it began — principled, skeptical and unwilling to bow to power, no matter who holds it. The movement that promised to drain Washington ended up building a new palace. It said 'America First,' but delivered 'Trump First.' Through all this, Massie stayed exactly where he was: demanding spending cuts, opposing executive overreach and defending the Constitution even when his own party tried to bulldoze it. Every MAGA promise has been shattered by its loudest apostles. Fiscal restraint? Trump exploded the deficit. Constitutional order? He ruled by tweet and tantrum. Endless wars? He launched unauthorized strikes. Dismantling the swamp? He just gave it a new uniform. Massie didn't move. He voted against every bloated stimulus package. He fought against illegal wars — not just when Democrats launched them, but when Trump did it, too. He defended congressional authority when his own party told him to shut up and fall in line. That's not rebellion for show — it is actual courage. Of course, the MAGA faithful will call him a traitor. That's the tell. They don't oppose the establishment; they have just built a new one. And Massie, by refusing to play along, exposes the absurdity of their game. Trump's pollsters wave around numbers like talismans. They predict a pro-Trump challenger will sweep the district. But Massie knows his district. He has fought off three primary challenges since 2012. His voters value independence over obedience, and he gives them that, in spades. The Republican Party faces a choice. It can become Trump's private army, where one stray thought earns you a superPAC hit-job, or it can remember what it once stood for: Small government, constitutional order and leaders who know the limits of power. Massie is the road not taken. He endorsed the 2024 presidential bid of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis when Trump was in the basement. He voted against war fever when it was politically convenient to stay silent. His offense isn't ideological drift; it's consistency. And in a party now built on sycophancy, many view that as unforgivable. The irony is delicious. Trump, the man who ran against the swamp, now uses the swamp's playbook, word for word. Endless money, poll-tested puppets and political punishment for disobedience. The populist hero has become everything he claimed to hate. Massie's libertarian, constitutional streak isn't a glitch. In a party now driven by clicks and blind devotion, he's the outlier who still believes in self-government. When Trump calls for bombing another country on a whim, Massie's the one reminding us we're a republic, not a monarchy. This is what real anti-establishment politics looks like: not all-caps rage posts, not loyalty parades, but stubborn, often unpopular principle. Trump built a machine to generate outrage. Massie just shows up and votes the way he always has. If Massie falls, the Republican Party won't just lose a congressional seat; it will forfeit the last trace of the ideals it once pretended to believe in. Who will vote against the next trillion-dollar spending spree? Who will stand up to the next foreign war fever dream? Who will remind the executive branch — Republican or Democrat — that it is not above the law? Trump may have the war chest, but Massie has something far more dangerous to the machine: credibility and conviction. While others orbit Trump's moods, Massie orbits the founding documents. While others contort themselves to fit the day's narrative, he hasn't bent once in over a decade. This isn't just a primary. It's a referendum on whether the Republican Party still has room for Republicans. Not sycophants. Not performers. But actual public servants, men and women who care more about liberty than likes, more about separation of powers than social media relevance, more about the country than any cult of personality. Thomas Massie is the last Republican who remembers what the job is actually for. If he falls, what's left isn't a party. It'll be an echo chamber dressed up as a political movement. John Mac Ghlionn is a writer and researcher who explores culture, society and the impact of technology on daily life.
