Spain’s Supreme Court has just taken its battle with Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez to a whole new level. 

The court on Tuesday banned Attorney General Álvaro García Ortiz from holding public office for two years for allegedly leaking details of a tax probe involving the partner of Madrid’s regional leader Isabel Díaz Ayuso, a rising star among the country’s conservative voters.

Justice Minister Félix Bolaños said that the government was obliged “to abide by the sentence” and appoint a new attorney general. But he stressed the executive’s disagreement with the conviction, and reaffirmed its belief in García Ortiz’s innocence.

The ruling risks turning that feud into a constitutional crisis, with the judiciary seemingly taking aim at members of the executive running Europe’s fourth-largest economy. The clash has taken a toll on Sánchez, who has long claimed to be the target of “lawfare,” accusing conservative judges of pursuing baseless cases against his allies and family. 

Last year the prime minister briefly considered stepping down after his wife was named as the target of a judicial investigation that is ongoing, but widely considered to be baseless. His brother, meanwhile, is due to face trial next year on influence-peddling charges linked to a civil service post he took before Sánchez came to power.

Both of the prime minister’s family members deny wrongdoing and say the cases are politically motivated.

A fake story and an alleged leak

The case against García Ortiz dates to early 2024, when Spanish media began reporting on a tax fraud investigation into Ayuso’s partner, businessman Alberto González Amador.

In March of last year, Spanish daily El Mundo published an article alleging the Madrid prosecutor’s office had offered González Amador a plea deal — a fake news story that Ayuso’s chief of staff, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, later admitted he spread to selected journalists.

When reporters sought confirmation, the prosecutor’s office clarified that it was actually the defense who proposed a plea deal by which the accused would admit to committing tax fraud in exchange for a reduced sentence. But several journalists published articles with that information ahead of the clarification’s release, sparking an investigation into whether emails between prosecutors and González Amador had been leaked.

In a surprise twist, García Ortiz was charged over the alleged disclosure.

At last week’s Supreme Court trial, the attorney general denied leaking the messages, with his defense attorneys demonstrating that dozens of officials had access to the allegedly leaked emails. Several journalists also testified that García Ortiz was not their source.

Judicial tension

García Ortiz’s case was tried by a panel of seven judges, with the five conservative judges backing the conviction and the two progressives dissenting. The verdict was announced unusually quickly — even before the court had drafted its legal reasoning.

It remains unclear how the judges will justify the decision, but it’s possible they were swayed by González Amador’s lawyer, who argued that the journalists who testified had a vested interest in protecting García Ortiz — if he was their leaker.

Speaking later at an event marking the 50th anniversary of dictator Francisco Franco’s death, Sánchez appeared to allude to the case, warning that “democracy is not a permanent conquest: it is a privilege we must defend every day from unfounded nostalgia, economic interests and attacks that constantly evolve.” 

“Today, these attacks take the form of disinformation campaigns and abuses of power,” he added.

The leader of the conservative opposition, People’s Party boss Alberto Núñez Feijóo, cheered the conviction, describing the attorney general as “someone who was supposed to be prosecuting crimes, but instead committed them.” He demanded Sánchez step down immediately.

But Sánchez’s ruling coalition has rallied around him, accusing the judiciary of being weaponized by conservative political forces.

Health Minister Mónica García, from the left-wing Más Madrid party, called the ruling an “affront” to all citizens. 

“This is a lethal blow to the rule of law, the requirement to present incriminating evidence, [and] the presumption of innocence,” she added.