Criticism The reform and the referendum gave rise to a debate. Critics of the reform generally argued that it did not tackle the real issues of Italian justice, and would not make justice more efficient or just as claimed by some supporters, and that it was not democratic as it would eliminate the right of
magistrates to freely elect their representatives in the CSM. They further argued that the public prosecutor would become a "super policeman" rather than an impartial one, who must seek the judicial truth and
exculpatory evidence (Article 358 of the
Italian Code of Criminal Procedure), that the separation of careers was irrelevant as they would account for less than one percent of all magistrates and that the
Cartabia Reform already applied a separation of career, and that it would represent the end of the principle that "the law is the same for everyone" (
la legge è uguale per tutti). Critics, including among others
Marco Travaglio, negatively compared the proposed reform to the United States justice system, arguing that the prosecutor, who is not "the prosecution's lawyer" but "the citizen's first defender" (a magistrate "with the obligation to seek the truth, just like a judge"), and that by transforming him into a separate figure, the new type of prosecutor under the reform "will inevitably be trained to be a policeman, that is, to accuse without considering whether someone is innocent or guilty", and that "our trial system risks becoming like that in the US, where the jury decides not who is guilty and who is innocent, but who has the best lawyer." Prominent judge and jurist
Gustavo Zagrebelsky described the reform as "a retaliation by certain politicians against certain judiciaries to shift the constitutional balance in favour of the former's impunity and to the detriment of the latter's autonomy and independence". Another argument, represented by the anti-mafia magistrate
Raffaele Cantone, was that judges were at the same time accused of lacking independence from prosecutors and thus supporting the prosecution's arguments, and of excessive
garantism when rejecting the prosecution, for example when releasing suspects. The latter criticism was shared by Gian Domenico Caiazza (chairman of a pro-reform committee) in reference to
Matteo Salvini's public messaging in the aftermath of a clash between a minority of violent protesters and the police in Turin. Cantone also observed that criminal justice is on the one hand accused of lacking effectiveness, blaming magistrates for direct consequences for public safety, and on the other hand is accused of being too "invasive" with respect to politics. 2021 data showed that first-instance acquittals were equal to 50%, a percentage that rises to 69.7% for trials held following opposition to a criminal conviction by the prosecutor, with critics suggesting that sharing the same order does not impact or condition judicial decisions. Critics, even among those in favour of the career separation, cited the lack of discussion between the government and the opposition in writing the reform, and those who voted against the reform in Parliament, such as
Pier Ferdinando Casini, described it as "useless". Others also argued that the career separation was bad because the prosecutors should be trained as judges as in the Italian system the goal of both prosecutors and judges is to reach the judicial truth, with the prosecutors free to request the acquittal of the defendant; data showed that around 50% of the time judges acquit defendants in cases where the prosecutor had requested a trial. Additionally, the magistrate would no longer be able to appeal to the Supreme Court of Cassation against a decision by the High Disciplinary Court and would not be granted the three-degrees of judgement; instead the magistrate could only appeal the decision to the same High Disciplinary Court, albeit it would not be composed of the same judicial panel. Finally, critics cited the high cost of the reform when the same amount of spending could be used to hire more magistrates and digitalise the system, that no country use sortition and that it would be "a genuine humiliation of the democratic rules and constitutional principles on active and passive suffrage", citing the board of the Union of the Italian Criminal Chambers (UCPI) in 2019 but that was in favour of the 2025 reform, and also observed that there were unclear aspects due to the fact that part of the reform would require ordinary laws for its functioning, in particular the organisation of the new bodies. Critics did not see the Nordio Reform as a justice reform but as a magistrature reform that the government was seeking to control politically, and it would lead towards
illiberalism and
authoritarianism, citing the abolition of the crime of
abuse of office, the weakening of the
Court of Audit and the crime of
influence peddling, a
de facto penal populism (
giustizialismo) through various repressive decrees and laws establishing new crimes under the guise of "
law and order" and security decrees, and the direct election of the prime minister (
premierato). Critics also argued that the separation of career was part of a reform project that marked the
history of the Italian Republic between the mid-1960s and the early 1980s, having already been envisaged in the "Democratic Rebirth Plan" drawn up by
Licio Gelli and
Propaganda Due (P2), a criminal Masonic lodge with
far-right and
neo-fascist links involved through Gelli as the instigator of the
Bologna station massacre, and that in turn was consubstantial with the various attempts at subversion, such as the
Borghese coup, the
Piano Solo, and the "
strategy of tension". Gelli's son, Maurizio Gelli, said that Meloni's government was implementing many of his father's ideas, including the separation of careers,
psycho-aptitude tests for magistrates, and
presidentialism.
Response Supporters generally responded that the career separation is typical of liberal democracy, while the unitary system is typical of authoritarian regimes. They also argued that if
de facto there already is a career separation with the Cartabia Reform, there should be no issue in making it
de jure, and observed that the text of the reform would maintain the same wording about the autonomy and independence of the magistrature, that the public prosecutors would not be put under the executive and would still be bound by Article 358 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requiring the prosecutor to also seek evidence in favour of the defendant. Another line of argument was that the reform would make the judiciary more efficient and just, by providing a truly impartial judge and that the prosecutor would also be more impartial, and that by reducing political factionalism within the CSM, the reform would make the magistrature more independent. The argument was that judges are not truly independent because they are judged by a CSM with a strong presence of investigating magistrates (prosecutors), also citing 5,933
wrongful detentions from 2017 to 2024 that costed the state €254 million in compensation. Supporters observed that the reform was different by the ones proposed by Gelli, former Prime Minister and
Italian Socialist Party (PSI) leader
Bettino Craxi, and
Silvio Berlusconi, and that the career separation was proposed by the centre-left coalition in the 1990s under
Massimo D'Alema and in the late 2010s during the secretary of
Maurizio Martina, and that it would be in line with the 1988 reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which moved the Italian system from a traditionally
inquisitorial system to a more adversial or
accusatorial system and bore the name of the PSI jurist
Giuliano Vassalli. Supporters of the reform criticised their opponents for engaging in what they saw as
fearmongering by postulating that the reform would lead towards illiberalism and authoritarianism. They cited as evidence left-wing individuals who came out in support of the reform and publicly expressed their favourable vote in the referendum. Supporters of the reforms lamented that "blacklists" circulated in
WhatsApp chats among magistrates opposed to the reform, criticising
constitutionalists who came in favour of the reform. Supporters, particularly those of the
centre-right coalition and within the Meloni government, often claim a political bias or argue that the magistrature is politicised, an allegation dating back to the
Berlusconi era, where he often adopted
red-baiting rhetoric by attacking magistrates as "communists" or with the epithet "red robes" (
toghe rosse), the latter an expression still used by the Italian right. In an official statement on 21 December 2024, in response to the sentences handed down by judges against senators
Matteo Renzi and Salvini, the UCPI stated that there had been a "political use of the judicial system by the judiciary", that such use had "subversive overtones", and therefore hoped to "put an end to this trend through a comprehensive constitutional reform of the judiciary". In January 2026, the "Pannella Sciascia Tortora Committee", promoted by the
Transnational Radical Party (PRT) to support the referendum on the separation of judicial careers, was reported to have filed a complaint against the leaders of the "Right to Say No" committee, accusing them of the misdemeanor offense under Article 656 of the Criminal Code ("publication or dissemination of false, exaggerated, or biased news, capable of disturbing public order") for promoting the dissemination of a propaganda poster reading: "Would you like judges who depend on politicians? No. With the Nordio law, politicians want to control the decisions of magistrates. VOTE NO IN THE REFERENDUM."
Concerns about the reform's effects The view that the government sought to politically control the magistrature was notably held by historian
Alessandro Barbero, who was criticised by
fact-checkers for a number of misleading claims; while they found that he presented a fairly accurate summary of the Italian justice system, they found that the text of the reform did not reflect the issues presented by Barbero. In particular, they found that Barbero's criticism was essentially valid for past proposed judicial reforms such as that of Berlusconi but did not fit the Nordio reform. In turn, there was a controversy about censorship as his video was removed by
Facebook. Fact-checkers denied that it was a censorship, stated that they verify the facts, not the opinions, and clarified that while Barbero's criticism was not factual, his view that the reform risks leading towards illiberalism or authoritarianism (through the political control of the magistrature) represented a legitimate political opinion that cannot be presently verified as it was a prediction about the reform's effects, and that the video should not have been removed by Facebook. Others rejected the textualist argument adopted by fact-checkers and argued that context was important, and the perceived fearmongering was in fact legitimate or even justified, citing the statements by the government ministers, who appeared to suggest that the reason of the reform was to better control the magistrature, which it accused of an alleged political bias and interference, after courts rejected several of the government's key proposals. On 30 October 2025, Meloni, after denouncing "yet another act of invasion of jurisdiction over the decisions of the government and Parliament", stated that "the constitutional reform of the justice system and the reform of the Court of Auditors, soon to be approved by the Senate, are the most appropriate response to this intrusiveness, which will not halt the government's action." In a speech to the National Council of Lawyers,
Alfredo Mantovano denounced "the courts' tendency to deny regulatory space to the legislature", which he said eroded the scope for direct expression of popular sovereignty, adding: "Today, there is a block on expulsions thanks to judicial decisions, there is a block on security, on industrial policy that seeks to achieve certain objectives—think of the Ilva steelworks—thanks to judicial decisions. This is an invasion of the field that must be addressed." On 22 November 2025, Salvini described the decision by the Juvenile Court of L'Aquila to remove six- and eight-year-old children from their parents in the "family in the woods" case as a "kidnapping". Nordio himself stated that the phenomenon of the alleged invasion of judicial power was not unique to Italy but also concerned other countries. In January 2026, Meloni made a statement on the
April 2026 Hungarian parliamentary election, calling on Hungarian voters to confirm the government of
Viktor Orbán; according to a
European Union report, Orbán's government severely reduced the independence of judges, so much so that the
European Commission decided to suspend funds destined for Hungary due to violations of the
rule of law, including those related to the
independence of the judiciary.
Carlo Nordio's statements In support of their arguments, critics of the reform cited statements by Nordio himself that they say are a "confession" of the real intention behind the reform and that justifies their concerns. Cited statements by Nordio included that the reform would be useful for the opposition if they were to return to government ("It amazes me that an intelligent person like Elly Schlein doesn't understand that this reform would also benefit them, if they were to take office") and that just because Gelli supported the career separation, this did not entail that the reform was automatically bad ("I don't know P2's plan. I can say that if Mr. Licio Gelli's interpretation, or rather his opinion, was correct, there's no reason why it shouldn't be followed because he said so. Truths don't depend on who proclaims them, but on the objectivity they represent ... If Gelli said that Jesus died on the cross, that doesn't mean we should say he died of pneumonia, or that a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. Even if Gelli stumbled over the truth, that doesn't mean the truth is no longer the truth"), which was described as a gaffe. In February 2026, Nordio stated that the reform "will not and must not have political effects" and that if those in favour of the reform were to win the referendum, there would be a dialogue with the magistrature. On 9 March 2026, the Ministry of Justice chief of staff Giusi Bartolozzi controversially called on voters to vote in favour of the reform "so we can get rid of the judiciary, which is [like] firing squads", and added that "I'm running away... I have an ongoing investigation. I'm running away from this country", if the reform was rejected, receiving criticism from the opposition, as well as the government; however, unlike the opposition, it refused to call for her resignation. Nordio apologised and later stated that Bartolozzi had already clarified that she was referring to "a small portion of politicised judges" and that she would "certainly have no difficulty apologising for words that I am sure don't reflect her thoughts and the esteem she has for the judiciary, of which, among other things, she herself is a part." Bartolazzi also explained that the comparison with firing squads was because it "alluded to the state of absolute prostration one finds oneself in when involved in a trial, especially if innocent. Effects that no acquittal can erase." Simonetta Matone, a former magistrate and member of the
Chamber of Deputies, criticised Nordio for causing the reform to lose support with "crazy statements", and said that he confused "what can be said in a living room with what can be said publicly". She added: "We all think the things he said, but they're things we can't say publicly because we've given the green light to a resurgence of the No front." In particular, she criticised the comparison made by Nordio between the CSM and "a para-mafia system", a statement he made a few days earlier.
Sensationalism and misleading claims Both sides of the debate engaged in some form of sensationalism or made misleading claims. Notably, Naples public prosecutor
Nicola Gratteri made misleading claims about anti-mafia magistrates
Paolo Borsellino and
Giovanni Falcone, citing quotes by Borsellino and Falcone in interviews that never took place and again citing a real quote by Falcone expressing opposition to the career separation but decontexualising it. Among the first to express doubts about the veridicity of the quotes was the journalist Damiano Aliprandi, who wrote for
Il Dubbio an article about it, and in turn
La Notizia, which had published an article in July 2025 reporting the quotes, issued a retraction. In response,
Il Foglio journalist Luciano Capone said that Gratteri, whom he described as a "frontman of the 'No' vote in the referendum", had read "a fake interview with Giovanni Falcone against career separation: one of those memes circulating on Facebook and WhatsApp, sometimes on
Il Fatto", and joked: "If he verifies the evidence like this as a prosecutor, we're screwed." As observed by Capone and as found by fact-checkers, the fake quotes dated back to the summer of 2025 and appeared in
Facebook groups and were shared as meme. On 13 November 2025,
Il Fatto Quotidiano editor-in-chief Marco Travaglio issued a retraction, stating: "When we're wrong, unlike the hoaxers who deliberately tell twenty lies a day, we apologise to our readers. And we do so today for having accepted at face value two incorrect quotes from Falcone and Borsellino, taken from written and online publications." Former Turin prosecutor Armando Spataro shared Gratteri's views, stating that Falcone himself underwent a change of career by switching from judge to prosecutor. Fact-checkers observed that it was misleading to claim that Borsellino and Falcone were either for or against the career separation as the judicial system they worked in was significantly different, that Falcone did not discuss the career separation as a magistrate, and that he was a member of a
political faction within the CSM, narrowly losing the presidency by 13 votes. Among the other misleading claims was that the reform would avert cases of
miscarriage of justice or so that as stated by Meloni from the stage of
Atreju, calling for voting in favour of the justice reform, "there never will be another shameful case" like the
Garlasco case, described by fact-checkers as "one of the most controversial legal cases of the last twenty years". == Campaign ==