On August 9, 2025, Portugal’s Constitutional Court ruled against a new immigration bill. The bill, passed by the right-wing parliamentary majority on July 16, posed a two-year waiting period for legally resident migrants to bring in close family members. Only highly skilled workers and investors would have been exempt.

The court found the bill likely to separate families—an outcome inconsistent with constitutional rights. It highlighted three key legal concerns: equality, proportionality, and legal security.

President Sends Bill Back After Legal Review

President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa had asked the court to review the bill before signing. He flagged potential violations of constitutional norms.

Following the court’s decision, the president returned the bill to parliament. However, the summer recess means lawmakers will only reconsider the bill when they reconvene in September.

Political Backdrop: Right-Wing, Chega, and July Vote

The bill’s approval reflected a broader European shift toward tougher immigration measures. Many governments are responding to rising support for far-right parties. In Portugal’s case, the bill emerged from a collaboration between the centre-right ruling coalition and the far-right Chega party, which gained prominence in the May general election.

Left-wing parties condemned the bill as inhumane. They accused the government of bowing to Chega’s anti-immigrant agenda. The government, in response, argued that tighter controls are needed to manage immigration flows. It has already expressed intent to address the court’s concerns and revise the bill accordingly.

Here are some of the measures rejected by the Constitutional Court:

Spouses

The proposed law stated that spouses could only join the holder of a residence permit in Portugal after the holder had been in the country for two years. The Court found this unconstitutional because it would separate the immigrant’s nuclear family, violating the right to family life.

Family reunification deadlines

The proposal allowed AIMA up to nine months (renewable for another nine) to decide on a family reunification request, without tacit approval after that period. Currently, the law sets a three-month deadline (renewable for another three) with tacit approval if no decision is made. The Court ruled this unconstitutional for violating the State’s duty to protect family life.

Access to courts

The proposal aimed to limit immigrants’ use of the “intimation for protection of human rights” procedure, because, in the government's opinion,  it was being overused without justification. The Court rejected this on the basis that the Portuguese Constitution guarantees that everyone has effective access to justice and judicial protection of their rights and legally protected interests including recognition of these rights and the possibility to appeal against harmful administrative acts.

. The Emigrant Impact: What This Ruling Means for Families

• Family reunification remains protected: The court’s decision ensures legally resident migrants can continue to apply for family reunification without new delays.

• Policy changes are still possible: The government plans to revise the bill to align with constitutional standards.

• Monitor updates post-September: New versions of the bill may return to parliament when it resumes. Staying informed is vital.

• Political dynamics matter: This legislation reflects Portugal’s political balancing act—responsive to right-leaning pressures but still constrained by legal protections.

Touchdown’s Take

Overall, we are quite happy about the Constitutional Court decisions.

These measures would have been completely ineffective in solving any real problems and, even worse, they would have clearly harmed the integration of immigrants in Portugal. Limiting family reunification would only lead to progressive isolation of immigrants and would negatively impact their stability, which is essential for anyone to be successful both socially and economically.

Restricting access to court would undermine the right to effective legal protection, a gold standard in any democratic country. By limiting access to court for immigrants, it would create a legitimised second-class status compared to Portuguese citizens, which is unfair.

In the end, this rejection shows that Portugal is highly democratic and focused on the protection of fundamental rights, and that even if some governments may have ideas that go against those rights, the checks and balances system will always prevail.