In Commission v Malta, the Court of Justice ruled that the Maltese citizenship by investment scheme violates European Union (EU) law. This article critically analyses the Court’s judgment. It does so by highlighting that, in its judgment, the Court embraces an essentialist understanding of EU citizenship—one which fails to understand the complexities of 21st century citizenship. It also discusses some of the deficiencies of the Court’s legal reasoning. The article proceeds as follows. It begins by providing the background to the case by discussing the origins of investor citizenship, AG Collins’s Opinion, and the Court’s judgment. It then discusses the Court’s legal reasoning, after which it focuses on the principle of solidarity. It concludes by looking at the future, addressing the judgment’s implications for the allocation of competences between the EU and its Member States and for those individuals naturalised under the 2020 programme.