Internal divisions in the court delay a key decision for the rights of trans and LGTBIQ+ people
The Constitutional Court has decided to postpone, without a scheduled date, its ruling on the Law for the Real and Effective Equality of Trans People and the Guarantee of the Rights of LGTBIQ+ People. The reason: the lack of sufficient support for the presentation prepared by the progressive magistrate Juan Carlos Campo, even within the majority sector similar to his position.
This week the Plenary Session was expected to address the appeal filed by the Popular Party against several articles of the law, commonly known as the Trans Law. However, the lack of consensus led the president of the court, Cándido Conde-Pumpido, to stop the vote and convert the session into a “first approximation.”
Tension in the debate: division even among progressive magistrates
The presentation presented by Campo validated the law for the most part, although it introduced nuances in sensitive aspects. It was defended without changes, but encountered resistance both in the conservative bloc and among some judges from the progressive wing, such as Inmaculada Montalbán and María Luisa Balaguer. The only firm support came from Ramón Sáez.
After hearing the objections, Campo undertook to draft a new proposal that would reflect the court’s different sensitivities. At the moment, there is no clear schedule for its review, although it is expected that the issue will return in future plenary sessions.
The core of the disagreement: minors, self-determination and legal security
Among the most controversial points of the PP appeal is article 19.2, which allows genital modification in children under 12 years of age for medical reasons and between 12 and 16 years of age with informed consent. Articles that allow sex registration changes without medical reports are also questioned, as well as sanctioning provisions for LGTBIQ+phobic content in the educational or cultural field.
Free gender self-determination—that is, the right of each person to have their identity recognized without clinical or judicial conditions—is at the center of the debate. Some voices consider that it could generate legal uncertainty or affect the definition of woman within the framework of equality policies. Where are the lines drawn between individual freedom and collective protection? The question remains open.
A law on hold or in danger?
The current paralysis raises concern in LGTBIQ+ groups, especially among trans people, whose reality still does not find a stable legal response. Some sources close to the process warn that the postponement could be a strategy to withdraw the draft without any real intention of replacing it, which they affirm would imply “institutional irresponsibility.”
Criticism and political tensions: are there hidden interests at play?
From a critical perspective, the political context surrounding this delay cannot be ignored. While the PP leads the appeal, Vox has intensified its offensive against trans rights in several autonomous communities. At the same time, the Court itself has had to balance media pressure with internal divisions. To what extent does the political battle influence an issue that directly affects human rights?
Another issue addressed: partial protection for sexual assault
In the same session, the Court has partially upheld a mother’s appeal for protection, as she was not allowed to appeal the reduction of the sentence to her daughter’s sexual attacker, in accordance with the law of only yes means yes. The TC considered their right to effective judicial protection violated, although it did not observe discrimination based on sex.
