Recent rulings from courts in Palermo, Catania, and Genoa have put the Italian government's policies towards NGOs in the spotlight. The Palermo court ruled that the Italian state must compensate the NGO Sea Watch for a six-month blockade imposed on one of its ships, which had entered Lampedusa's port in June 2019 after rescuing migrants. This unusual verdict has raised questions about the role of the judiciary in political matters and the shifting narrative surrounding migrant rescues.

In conjunction with the ruling from Palermo, the Catania civil court ruled in favor of the German NGO, overturning the detention imposed by the prefect of Catania regarding operations in the Libyan SAR zone, which had been carried out without prior communication with the local authorities. The NGOs argued their actions were a response to the ongoing human rights violations in Libya, which have led them to prioritize the safety of migrants over bureaucratic compliance.

These court decisions reflect a growing tension between local and national authorities, as well as between the judiciary and the government. Critics argue that such rulings undermine the government's authority to manage immigration and border control, while supporters see them as a necessary check on government policy concerning human rights and humanitarian efforts. This legal confrontation indicates a complex interplay between law and politics in Italy's ongoing immigration debate.