French Council of State Confirms Marine Le Pen’s Forced Resignation and Five-Year Ineligibility

On November 10, 2025, the Conseil d’Etat upheld the forced resignation of Marine Le Pen from her role as a departmental councilor in Pas-de-Calais, following her March conviction which sentenced her to five years of ineligibility due to the misuse of public funds. The court dismissed Le Pen’s appeal against the prefect’s decree mandating her resignation, reaffirming the constitutional validity of the electoral law provisions that result in automatic loss of mandates for local officials sentenced to ineligibility. This ruling aligns with previous decisions regarding similar resignations of municipal councilors.

Le Pen, alongside other members of the Rassemblement National, was convicted for embezzling approximately 4 million euros intended for parliamentary assistants between 2004 and 2016. She challenged the fairness of the law, arguing it violates the principle of equality before the law, since parliamentarians do not automatically lose their mandates pending final convictions. However, the Conseil d’Etat noted that the Constitutional Council has upheld these provisions as constitutional.

An appeals trial for this case has been scheduled from January 13 to February 12, 2026, with a ruling expected about four months thereafter. Should her sentence be upheld, Marine Le Pen has acknowledged she would be ineligible to run in the 2027 presidential election, stating she will decide on her candidacy based on the outcome of the appeal.

This latest decision marks a significant development in French politics, as it not only enforces the legal consequences of her conviction but also carries direct implications for her political future and the upcoming presidential race.

According to Le Monde, "the application of electoral rules for local officials convicted of ineligibility is unambiguous, and the court confirmed that the prefect had no discretion in ordering her dismissal." Liberation quotes the court's dismissal of the constitutional question as grounded in established precedent, with the Constitutional Council having previously ruled similar measures permissible. Le Pen continues to contest the fairness of these legal distinctions, underscoring ongoing political and legal tensions.