As American experience shows, even consolidated liberal democracies are vulnerable to assaults on the rule of law. France could soon follow the path of the United States. In announcing her candidacy in a prime-time television interview, just hours after the Paris Court of Appeal essentially confirmed her criminal conviction, the leader of Rassemblement National (RN) has brought one of Europe’s oldest constitutional democracies to the brink of a direct clash between electoral politics and judicial authority.
The legal facts are clear. Le Pen was convicted of organizing a scheme intended to misuse funds from the European Parliament to pay staff of her party in France and personal assistants. The Court of Appeal confirmed the core of the first-instance ruling and imposed a three-year prison term: two years suspended and one to be served under house arrest with electronic monitoring. At the same time, however, it reduced her electoral disqualification period, enabling her to run in the presidential elections in spring 2027.
Le Pen announced that she would appeal to the Court of Cassation. Under French law, this appeal suspends the execution of the appellate judgment. This means that, until the country’s highest court rules, she can continue campaigning without serving her sentence.
“Le Pen has placed one of Europe’s oldest constitutional democracies at the brink of a direct clash between electoral politics and judicial authority”
A first glance, this might seem little more than a legal maneuver to preserve her candidacy. In truth, it embodies a far riskier political strategy. It puts the French Supreme Court at the center of a presidential campaign and opens the door to an unprecedented confrontation between the Executive and the Judicial branches. Le Pen had another option. She had repeatedly stated that she would not run for the presidency if she were sentenced to house arrest. She could have stepped aside in favor of her protégé and RN president, Jordan Bardella, whose popularity already exceeds hers. Almost certainly, she would have kept considerable influence over a possible presidency led by her successor. By choosing to run despite her conviction, she has raised dramatically what is at stake in the 2027 election.
Now, her candidacy inevitably exerts immense pressure on the Court of Cassation. When asked what would happen if the court confirmed her conviction during the campaign, Le Pen answered with a populist cliché: “The French people will decide.” The familiar victimhood rhetoric was also present. In the same interview, Le Pen cast her conviction as an unfair personal trial reflecting the everyday hardships of French citizens.
The Court of Cassation has already announced its intent to examine the case through an accelerated procedure, aiming to rule in January 2027, rather than after the usual year-plus delay. In this way, voters would know before the April presidential elections whether Le Pen’s conviction has been upheld.
However, the court does not completely control its calendar. The RN leader’s lawyers, who in recent years have repeatedly used procedural tricks to delay the proceedings, could challenge the constitutionality of the criminal provisions applied in the case. The court would then have to decide whether to refer the issue to the Constitutional Council, which would in turn have three months to issue a ruling. In that scenario, there is a strong likelihood that a definitive ruling would not come until after the presidential elections.
“The Court of Cassation has already announced its intention to examine the case through an accelerated procedure, with the aim of ruling in January 2027”
The Court of Cassation could, of course, dismiss that constitutional question within twenty-four hours if it deemed it manifestly unfounded. But deciding during a presidential campaign would trigger accusations—perhaps louder than those following Le Pen’s initial conviction—that unelected judges are attempting to erase the “people’s candidate” by depriving her of her legal rights. If the court later upheld the conviction, those attacks would only intensify.
What would happen if Le Pen wins the presidency
The biggest challenge, however, could arrive after the election day. Under the French Constitution, an incumbent president cannot be prosecuted nor can a criminal sentence be carried out against them during their term. If Le Pen were to win the presidency — something that, according to current polls, remains entirely possible — the procedures against her would not be extinguished, as occurred with Donald Trump in the United States, but would simply be suspended until she left office.
This scenario creates clear incentives for institutional conflict. A President Le Pen would have strong reasons to weaken the authority and independence of the judiciary. If the subsequent legislative elections, which are almost certain to be held, granted RN and its allies a parliamentary majority, the conflict could threaten the constitutional balance of the Fifth Republic.
“A President Le Pen would have strong reasons to weaken the authority and independence of the judiciary”
The combination of Le Pen’s legal troubles, her electoral strength, and the semi-presidential nature of the Fifth Republic could, therefore, push France toward an open confrontation between the Executive and the judiciary. It is a tangible possibility from the moment she decided to run after her conviction. Never before had a presidential candidate with real chances made accountability before the law a central campaign issue. François Fillon, after coming under criminal investigation in 2017, withdrew from an election he could have won. Other French presidents, from Jacques Chirac to Nicolas Sarkozy, have faced investigations and criminal convictions, but never before had it led to a constitutional clash with the judiciary. This could become one of the defining questions of the 2027 campaign. And if Le Pen were to win the presidency, the French constitutional order could be thrust into enormous tension.
For years, Le Pen has pursued a strategy of dédiabolisation — “dedemonisation” or “defanging the demon” — moderating her image and rhetoric to become a presidential candidate acceptable to the Élysée. As a result, many have come to regard both her and her party as part of the arc républicain, the French expression for the broad democratic mainstream. The way she has launched her presidential bid — declaring that “the people” will decide what should be decided by independent judges — should give them pause.
But the implications go far beyond France. The return of Donald Trump to power has already shown that even the most established constitutional democracies are vulnerable to erosion of the rule of law. The French Fifth Republic could soon become the first major Western European democracy to face a comparable challenge. Liberal democratic institutions ultimately depend on political actors accepting the constraints these institutions impose. France undoubtedly possesses robust institutional and social safeguards to resist a broad democratic regressionBut the struggle to preserve the rule of law could be lengthy, and its outcome remains far from assured.
