The regulation of religious attire, particularly full-face veils, has emerged as a crucial intersection of human rights, gender equality, secularism, and legal pluralism. This presentation explores the Spanish Supreme Court's ruling on the municipal ban on full-face veils in Lleida, contextualizing it within broader European legal trends and human rights frameworks. While the Court struck down the municipal regulation as an infringement on religious freedom, it avoided engaging with key tensions surrounding gender equality, social integration, and Islamophobia. Drawing on legal anthropology, sociology, gender studies, this study examines how legal frameworks both shape and are shaped by socio-political discourses on Muslim women's agency and public visibility. The presentation highlights how judicial decisions on religious attire reflect deeper ideological tensions between formal neutrality and structural discrimination, particularly when legal reasoning remains detached from intersectional and empirical analyses. By situating the case within the evolution of European jurisprudence -including the European Court of Human Rights' rulings in S.A.S. v. France and Dakir v. Belgium- we interrogate how the legal concept of "living together" has been employed to justify restrictions on fundamental rights. The discussion will unpack the historical legacies of colonialism in shaping contemporary anxieties around Muslim women's clothing, demonstrating how regulations on veiling often reinforce racialized and gendered hierarchies under the guise of neutrality. By incorporating anthropological insights into judicial reasoning, we argue that legal frameworks must move beyond abstract principles of secularism and public order to acknowledge the lived realities of those affected.