Argentina’s appeals court rules Javier Milei’s citizenship-reform DNU 366/2025 unconstitutional

An Argentine federal appellate court held that President Javier Milei’s government had no authority to overhaul the country’s citizenship granting rules via a Decreto de Necesidad y Urgencia (DNU). The ruling was issued by Sala III of the Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Civil y Comercial Federal on June 18 in a case brought by a specific foreign applicant.

The court found that the citizenship reforms introduced under DNU 366/2025 were unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff. At the same time, the DNU serves as the legal backbone not only for general naturalization procedures, but also for the citizenship by investment (CBI) framework—meaning the judges’ reasoning extends beyond a single administrative step to the broader legal “machinery” behind the investment pathway.

What the court decided

Yana Volosh challenged the decree on two main grounds. First, she argued that the executive branch cannot issue rules that change citizenship procedures—an area reserved for Congress. Second, she contended that the DNU does not satisfy the constitutional threshold of “necessity and urgency” required by Article 99 of Argentina’s Constitution.

The lower court rejected her arguments and effectively pushed her toward an administrative route at the National Immigration Office (DNM). On appeal, the chamber overturned that decision and ordered the court to hear the application on its merits.

The appellate judges emphasized that “necessity and urgency” cannot be used to bypass parliamentary processes. The decision states plainly that the Constitution does not permit avoiding congressional debate in order to sidestep legislative timelines.

As a legal test, the court relied on Supreme Court precedents such as Verrocchi and Consumidores Argentinos, under which a DNU is only acceptable when Congress cannot realistically act.

Why the court deemed DNU 366/2025 improper

The chamber concluded that the “necessity and urgency” requirement was not met in this instance. The decree was published on May 28, 2025, while Congress was functioning. The preamble offered no explanation of why the issue could not be regulated legislatively or what concrete urgency justified emergency action.

It also found that implementation dragged on. Online naturalization steps at the DNM were reportedly added only after four months, while the relevant instructions were released nearly ten months later. In the court’s view, this timeline did not fit the logic of an emergency measure.

The judges also developed the argument that the accelerated route is fundamentally at odds with the nature of citizenship itself. The ruling notes that citizenship has historically been tied to a residency requirement—typically two years—so access to citizenship “sits uneasily” with situations where foreigners are present in the country only intermittently. The court acknowledged that a one-time fast entry could explain some acceleration, but naturalization should not, by its nature, operate as an instant procedure.

Finally, the chamber pointed to missing procedural safeguards. In the new administrative model, roles and protections associated with Law 27.148 disappeared, along with public notifications, a window for third-party objections, and the ability to appeal a refusal of citizenship. The court concluded that these oversight elements were removed without being replaced by comparable public notice and review mechanisms.

A narrow ruling in form, a broad message in substance

Formally, the decision is tied to the specific dispute. The court overturned the earlier ruling to the extent it had not found DNU 366/2025 unconstitutional, and ordered the federal court to reclaim jurisdiction and reconsider Volosh’s case.

For other applicants, the DNU remains in place: the effect is inter partes (within the case) rather than erga omnes (for everyone). Moreover, because Sala III is an appellate instance, the state still has the option to seek review by the Supreme Court.

Notably, the court’s approach did not stop with this single matter. One week later, on June 25, the same judges issued a similar decision in Michurin, finding the real-world situation “substantially analogous” to Volosh’s. Earlier, in August, a federal judge in Paraná reached a comparable conclusion in Mondragón Herrera.

Paulo Carello, a former official of the DNM, suggested that the Paraná judge did not “cede” jurisdiction—because the court was still handling applications directly. In Volosh’s case, by contrast, the lower court had redirected the matter to the DNM, and the appeal then required the court to regain competence.

Carello believes the system may end up supporting two parallel models: an administrative track through the DNM under the DNU framework, and a judicial track through federal courts applying the ordinary rules. He also notes that judicial routing could become entrenched in other regions, but confirming that would require a broader nationwide analysis of case law.

At the same time, Congress has not reacted. Carello said he submitted a request in June 2025 to the bicameral committee that reviews exceptional DNU measures, but received no response. In his view, once parliamentary oversight stops working, such decrees can continue by default even when their legality is questioned.

Why the decision matters for the citizenship-by-investment route

Technically, the court did not examine an investment-linked application. Volosh sought judicial review rather than going through the administrative authority. Still, the logic that undermined one piece of the reform can, in practice, hit other parts of the same structure: because the investment pathway and the allocation of naturalization authority are embedded in the same DNU design, the court’s reasoning may be transferable to the broader model.

The court’s stance goes deeper than it might appear from the final wording. One possible counterargument is that the DNU cannot be used for citizenship reform—at least in theory that could be cured by Congress passing a statute. But the more vulnerable weak spot is harder to fix: the chamber highlighted the removal of familiar safeguards in the administrative model without adequate replacement. That administrative model is also the foundation for CBI.

The judges also discussed residency as a prerequisite. The decision did not directly analyze an investment scenario without residency, so strictly speaking it did not rule against a “no-residency” model. However, the underlying premise—that citizenship presupposes years of residence—conflicts with an approach where a passport may be secured through capital without long-term presence in the country.

Not all specialists see an immediate threat to CBI. Andrés Echavarría, partner and chair at Vivanco & Vivanco, said reading Volosh as a signal of CBI instability is “a mistake.” In his view, the dispute concerned jurisdiction over naturalization, not the investment pathway itself. Under that reading, the DNU would keep operating, and so would the investment route.

In practice, the program is stalling

Even if the legal framework remains intact, CBI implementation has run into delays. Industry sources say officials at the Ministry of Economy still have not clarified what qualifies as a “relevant” investment. In April, the ministry reportedly canceled a tender for the “main agent,” and the agency responsible for citizenship-by-investment programs appointed its director only later that same month. In addition, even the launch figure—an alleged minimum of US$500,000—was not codified in law.

Some lawyers point to a more stable alternative already present in immigration legislation. Martín Hecht, founder of MH Legal Hub, notes that Article 23(d) of the immigration law allows investors to obtain residency based on a norm adopted by Congress. He argues this mechanism is “fully protected” from the constitutional vulnerabilities of the current DNU. He also believes investment thresholds frozen in 2010 pesos (roughly around US$1,000) can be updated by regulation rather than requiring a new law.

The shift now is risk assessment. A program that partially relied on Argentine institutions and judicial independence now faces case law where independence is being used to question the very instrument that created the system.

Carello stresses that the issue is not closed. Where courts continue to process naturalization directly under normal procedures, the judicial track may prove durable. Still, Volosh and Michurin illustrate that appellate bodies can redirect disputes back to the courts instead of leaving them with the DNM. In his view, the near future is unlikely to produce a single final answer: “I think we’ll end up with two coexisting routes rather than one unified solution.”

However, the weight of each route may differ. The administrative path may be steadier: the base structure already exists, and what is missing is mainly regulatory detail—such as a final definition of the “relevant” investment, procedural fine points, and the specific guarantees the court said were absent. The judicial path carries greater uncertainty because it challenges the constitutionality of the DNU itself.

For any individual applicant, outcomes will depend not only on the chosen route, but also on how far the dispute goes—how deeply it contests the legality of the mechanism through which they hope to obtain citizenship.

Expert note: One lesser-discussed angle of cases involving Argentina DNU 366/2025 is how emergency-decree standards interact with administrative capacity. Even where a DNU is later challenged, agencies may keep processing applications to avoid a sudden backlog—creating “practical continuity” that can muddy the real-world impact of a constitutional ruling. Over time, this dynamic can encourage applicants to forum-shop between administrative and judicial tracks, not because the law is settled, but because processing speed and procedural safeguards differ by venue. Observers therefore watch not only the final legality, but also whether courts and regulators converge on a consistent procedure after the decisions.

If you’re considering golden visa / citizenship by investment for legalisation, it’s crucial to factor in legal risks: even when a programme is built on special instruments, its application can be challenged in court. In cases like Argentina’s DNU 366/2025, getting reliable guidance on current requirements and a correct step-by-step strategy becomes essential. The Digital Nomad team will help you assess prospects, prepare documentation, and choose a legally robust route aligned with your goal.

Our Telegram channel about various types of Greek residence permits, digital nomad programs, and the Greek Golden Visa: @digitalnomadgr