However, it remains that by attaching the penalty of ineligibility for Marine Le Pen with provisional execution, the court has indeed made a “political decision.” Not that the rule of law would be “totally violated,” as Ms. Le Pen claims, or that “French democracy is being executed,” as Jordan Bardella writes, or that the judges have “decided to execute in a court [the national camp and the Le Pen family] they could never defeat at the ballot box,” as Marion Maréchal asserts. The judgment is, indeed, politicized. But in the noble sense of the word: although it can be debated from the perspective of judicial fairness and the right of any defendant to appeal, the provisional execution of Marine Le Pen’s ineligibility is not driven by a petty partisan maneuver aimed at blocking her candidacy in the 2027 Presidential election. Rather, it is motivated by the noble goal of protecting the rule of law from the “major disruption to public order” that would result from “the candidacy of a person already convicted in the first instance.”

Indeed, what would have happened if the ability to appeal could suspend Ms. Le Pen’s ineligibility, and she were to run for office while the judicial and electoral calendars overlapped? In such circumstances, an appeal decision that confirmed her ineligibility at the last minute would penalize her party, preventing it from campaigning under fair conditions. Likewise, a reversal of this ineligibility by the appellate court would similarly impact the credibility of the election, providing ammunition for her party to play the victim. Not to mention the scenario, though unlikely but plausible, where she runs for office and wins the presidential election before the appeal is decided. In such a case, the appeal trial could not take place before the end of her term (or possibly two terms) in the Élysée!

Without provisional execution, Ms. Le Pen’s ineligibility would pose much more complex issues than the simple question of the constitutionality of this provisional execution, which could be resolved by referring the matter to the Constitutional Council via a PQC (priority question of constitutionality). In fact, the Council recently opened the door to a likely favorable outcome for such a referral: on March 28 (three days before Marine Le Pen’s conviction), the Council, ruling on a PQC raised by a local elected official from Mayotte, considered that the constitutionality of a provisional execution of an ineligibility sentence must be assessed in light of “the proportionality of the harm this measure may cause to the exercise of an ongoing mandate and to the preservation of the electorate’s freedom.”

“Nevertheless, in order to eliminate any suspicion of partisan bias and to undeniably prove that the verdict of March 31st was motivated solely by the defense of the rule of law and the proper functioning of institutions, the judiciary had to ensure that the appeal trial would take place before the presidential election in April 2027. The verdict, whether it confirms or overturns the illegitimacy of Marine Le Pen, should be delivered well in advance of the election so that the Rassemblement National can campaign, with or without her, under fair conditions. And this is exactly what the Paris Court of Appeal did, by announcing, the day after the first-instance verdict, that an appeal decision would be considered in the summer of 2026.

Regardless of the final decision that will be made, if it is indeed rendered before the presidential election, democracy will emerge strengthened.It would also be the best way to thwart the populist opportunists of all kinds, who are rubbing their hands together, hoping that Marine Le Pen will be excluded from the presidential race under the most controversial circumstances. Not just in the hope of replacing her or eroding her electoral base, but also—and most importantly—to attack the very foundations of the rule of law.

I am particularly thinking of those who, like Bruno Retailleau, consider that “the rule of law is not intangible or sacred.” Those who, like Éric Zemmour, spread a nebulous and conspiratorial theory about a supposed “coup d’état by judges.” Or, worse still, as Laurent Wauquiez dared to suggest, a “coup d’état by rule of law”!