Spain's top court orders Franco family to hand back Romanesque statues
MADRID (Reuters) -Spain's Supreme Court has ruled that the descendants of dictator Francisco Franco must return two valuable Romanesque statues to the northwestern city of Santiago de Compostela, according to a court statement released on Thursday.
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
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
In a scathing dissent, Justice Jackson says the Supreme Court gives the impression it favors 'moneyed interests'
WASHINGTON — Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized her colleagues on Friday in a scathing dissent on a case involving vehicle emissions regulations. In her dissenting opinion, she argued that the court's opinion gives the impression it favors 'moneyed interests' in the way they decide which cases to hear and how they rule in them. The court had ruled 7-2 in favor of fuel producers seeking to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's approval of California clean vehicle emissions regulations. She also said she was concerned that the ruling could have "a reputational cost for this court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests." With the Trump administration reversing course on many of Biden's environmental policies, including on California's electric vehicle mandates, the case is likely moot, or soon to be, Jackson wrote, making her wonder why the court felt the need to decide it. "This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this court than ordinary citizens," Jackson wrote. The case said that the producers had legal standing to bring their claims, resting on a theory "that the court has refused to apply in cases brought by less powerful plaintiffs," she added. The decision has little practical importance now, but in future, "will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act," she said. "Also, I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests," she added. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has often faced claims that it is particularly receptive to arguments made by big business. The conservative justices have been especially skeptical of broad government regulations and they have consistently made it harder for consumers and workers to bring class action lawsuits. Last year, the court overturned a 40-year precedent much loathed by business interests that empowered federal agencies in the regulatory process. Some legal experts have pushed back, saying such allegations are misleading. Jackson concluded her dissent by noting the court's "simultaneous aversion to hearing cases involving the potential vindication of less powerful litigants — workers, criminal defendants, and the condemned, among others." Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the majority opinion, responded to her claims, saying that a review of standing cases "disproves that suggestion." He mentioned several recent rulings in which liberal justices were in the majority, including one last year finding that anti-abortion doctors who challenged the abortion pill mifepristone did not have standing to sue. The bottom line, he added, is that the government "may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders." Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law whose scholarship pushes back on Jackson's theory, said it was notable that no other justices, including her two fellow liberals, signed on to her dissent. "I don't think this case is an example of the court being inconsistent or somehow more favorable to moneyed interests than other sorts of interests," he said in an interview with NBC News. "It's not like the court has closed the door on environmental groups." Adler, who Jackson cited in her dissent, said it can be "very simplistic" to classify cases as pro-business or anti-business simply because there can often be wealthy interests on both sides. The underlying case stems from the EPA's authority to issue national vehicle emissions standards under the federal Clean Air Act. In recognition of California's historic role in regulating emissions, the law allows the EPA to give the state a waiver from the nationwide standards so that it can adopt its own. The case focused on a request made by California in 2012 that EPA approve new regulations, not the state's 2024 plan to eliminate gasoline-powered cars by 2035 for which it also sought a waiver. The Republican-controlled Congress voted earlier this month to revoke that waiver. This article was originally published on
Associated Press
15 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Supreme Court rejects toy company's push for a quick decision on Trump's tariffs
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday rejected an appeal from an Illinois toy company pushing for a quick decision on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs. Learning Resources Inc. had asked the justices to take up the case soon, rather than let it continue to play out in lower courts. The company argues the tariffs and uncertainty are having a 'massive impact' on businesses around the country and the issue needs swift attention from the nation's highest court. The justices didn't explain their reasoning in the brief order rebuffing the appeal, but the Supreme Court is typically reluctant to take up cases before lower courts have decided. The company argues that the Republican president illegally imposed tariffs under an emergency powers law, bypassing Congress. It won an early victory in a lower court, but the order is on hold as an appeals court considers a similar ruling putting a broader block on Trump's tariffs. The appeals court has allowed Trump to continue collecting tariffs under the emergency powers law ahead of arguments set for late July. The Trump administration has defended the tariffs by arguing that the emergency powers law gives the president the authority to regulate imports during national emergencies and that the country's longtime trade deficit qualifies as a national emergency. ___
USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump tariff challenge: Supreme Court won't speed decision for toy importer
The high court denied a request by a family-owned toy company to expedite a review of their tariff challenge. WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court declined to speed up its consideration of whether to take up a challenge to President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs before lower courts have ruled in the dispute. The high court denied a request by a family-owned toy company, Learning Resources, that filed the challenge against Trump's tariffs to expedite the review of the dispute. More: Hasbro layoffs: Toymaker restructures due to tariff struggles and weak demand The company, which makes educational toys, won a court ruling on May 29 that Trump cannot unilaterally impose tariffs using the emergency legal authority he had cited for them. That ruling is currently on hold, leaving the tariffs in place for now. Learning Resources asked the Supreme Court to take the rare step of immediately hearing the case to decide the legality of the tariffs, effectively leapfrogging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Washington, where the case is pending. More: Second federal court blocks Trump tariffs, this time for Illinois toy importers Two district courts have ruled that Trump's tariffs are not justified under the law he cited for them, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Both of those cases are on appeal. No court has yet backed the sweeping emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed.
