[6] Unlike the main alternative, the American model, the features of the Kelsenian model are that only a constitutional court is empowered to find that a statute is unconstitutional, secondly that of abstract review (that is without requiring legal cases but rather through application by public institutions), and thirdly, that appointments to the court are made largely by political bodies and have limited terms.

[8] Because many of the constitutional provisions pertaining to autonomy questions are ambiguous and sometimes contradictory, it had been suggested from the outset that the Court would play a critical role in Spain's political and social development.

[9] In addition, the Court has other powers not typical of the Kelsenian model including determining whether non-legislative acts by the central government, its branches, or the regional governments abide by the distribution of powers defined by the Constitution and other higher laws, hearing complaints from the public about their constitutional rights and preventive review (prior to promulgation) of statutes of autonomy of the regions.

[10] Individual citizens may appeal to the Constitutional Court for protection against governmental acts that violate their "fundamental rights or freedoms".

[17] A number of empirical studies show that a non-irrelevant part of the variance judicial decisions is explained by partisan alignments and political context.

[24] In 2022 the Court upheld an amparo appeal by the People's Party claiming a violation of their rights to exercise representative office and of the right of citizens to participate in public affairs through those representatives, by legislation which would have made changes to the General Council of the Judiciary to break the Spanish General Council of the Judiciary blockade.

[26][27] Both the President of the Congress of Deputies Meritxell Batet and the President of the Senate Ander Gil, respected the decision of the Court,[28] although they considered the decision a dangerous precedent since it meant that "the interruption of the legislative power is within the reach of a single deputy filing an appeal" which would prevent the "legitimate representatives of popular sovereignty" from "exercising their functions and debating or voting".