When Marine Le Pen, the French far-right leader, was convicted last year of embezzlement and barred from running for office, she assailed the courts as an enemy of democracy. A front-runner for the presidency, she said she had been denied the post by judicial fiat rather than voter choice.
On Tuesday, judges threw the ball back into her court. An appeals court upheld her conviction but allowed her to run, with the chief judge saying that it did not want to “infringe upon the principle of freedom to stand for election.”
The court decreed that Ms. Le Pen must still wear an electronic monitor, something she had previously said would make a candidacy untenable. But by commuting the election ban, it allowed her to decide her own political fate, undermining her argument that the judiciary had thwarted the people’s will.
By Tuesday evening, Ms. Le Pen had launched her presidential campaign. She said she would appeal the ruling to France’s highest court, putting the requirement to wear a monitor on hold.
“It really rests on her shoulders now,” said Benjamin Morel, a lecturer in public law at Panthéon-Assas University in Paris. “She carries the stain of this case and sentence, but justice is not what is banning her from running.”
Professor Morel described the court’s decision as “clever” and “finely calibrated,” showing the seriousness of her crime but also that the judges “aren’t taking on the responsibility of hindering the democratic process.”
Ms. Le Pen was not convicted of enriching herself, but of illegally funneling European Union funds to her political party.
The case reflects wider global tensions between populist leaders and watchdog institutions, whether it is President Trump’s denunciation of multiple cases against him or Nigel Farage’s angry response to investigations of his finances. Mr. Farage, the leader of the hard-right party Reform U.K., said he would resign from Parliament on Tuesday, vowing to win a fresh mandate from voters in a by-election.
Though it echoed confrontations elsewhere, there was something particularly striking about a French court weighing political calculations so openly. It reflects the extraordinary nature of Ms. Le Pen’s case, which has always been as much about the trajectory of French politics as about the charges against her.
In a written statement, the court said it had tried to strike a balance between the gravity of Ms. Le Pen’s wrongdoing and the loss of voter choice if she were barred from running. It left unsaid that Ms. Le Pen has a plausible shot at the presidency.
In the end, the court shortened the prohibition on Ms. Le Pen seeking public office from five years to 45 months, 30 months of it suspended. That left her barred from running for 15 months after her conviction in March 2025 — a term, the judge noted, that has already lapsed.
Doing otherwise, the court said, would have impeded “an essential condition for the democratic expression of universal suffrage.”
Those words could have been aimed squarely at the grievances Ms. Le Pen has aired ever since she was charged. She and her party, the National Rally, were accused of channeling millions of euros in European funds, intended to pay the salaries aides to its European Parliament members, to finance other party activities.
In the days after her conviction in March 2025, she unleashed a torrent of abuse at the court, accusing it of “judicial tyranny” and a “witch hunt.” She said little about the allegations themselves, portraying the decision to ban her from public office as an attack on voters’ rights.
“Let’s be clear,” she said. “I am eliminated, but in reality, it’s millions of French people whose voices have been eliminated.” The judges, she said, “implemented practices thought to be reserved for authoritarian regimes.”
Ms. Le Pen’s words carried a clear echo of Mr. Trump, who denounced the U.S. legal system in as he faced civil and criminal charges. The president turned his prosecutions into a kind of martyrdom, hanging a framed photo of his mug shot in the West Wing.
The spectacle of Ms. Le Pen campaigning while wearing an ankle monitor would take France into similarly uncharted territory. But analysts said she could use it to paint herself as an insurgent fighting the establishment.
“You have to take into account the nature of her electorate,” said Philippe Marlière, a professor of French and European politics at University College London. “People who support her won’t be convinced by the conviction. There will be a sense of injustice, of Le Pen being a victim of left-wing judges.”
But aside from her core supporters, he said, French voters would be less forgiving. He pointed to François Fillon, a former prime minister who led in the polls at this point before the 2017 elections, before being brought down by a financial scandal.
“I think that nothing should be imposed on the French people,” Ms. Le Pen said. “We have to let them have the final say. And here, the French people will have the final say.”
Catherine Porter and Ségolène Le Stradic contributed reporting.
