The Trial of the “Pissed-Off”: Emmanuel Macron Sued Over His Remarks About the Unvaccinated
A historic civil lawsuit is targeting Emmanuel Macron personally. The association Réaction 19 has sued him for discrimination, citing his 2022 remarks about the unvaccinated. This legal offensive raises questions about the limits of presidential immunity.
Remarks That Linger Like a Stain
In January 2022, in an interview with
Le Parisien, the president declared: “The unvaccinated, I really want to piss them off.” He described them as a “small refractory minority,” destined for irresponsibility and a form of civic disenfranchisement. These words, delivered on the eve of an election campaign, were used to legitimize the exclusion of unvaccinated people from many public spaces. Criminal complaints for insult and defamation were immediately filed. They failed, smothered by presidential immunity.
The Réaction 19 Association Goes on the Offensive
Led by lawyer Carlo Alberto Brusa and boasting more than ten thousand members, the association crossed a new threshold in April 2025. It summoned the president before the Paris Judicial Court for “discrimination and psychological violence.” More than five hundred plaintiffs are seeking compensation, claiming their rights and dignity were trampled. Their central argument: Article 225 of the French Penal Code, which prohibits discrimination based on health status, must take precedence over the temporary protection afforded to the head of state. They argue that the president knowingly divided the social fabric through his words.
A Tense Hearing in Court
The procedure itself resembles an obstacle course. Court officers ran into the opacity of the Élysée’s services. At the preliminary hearing on January 22, 2026, two visions of the law clashed. For the plaintiffs, lawyers Carlo Brusa and Maud Marian argued that stigmatizing part of the population falls outside any presidential prerogative. Immunity, they contend, cannot cover a personal fault separable from the office. The defense, led by Me Enoki, invoked Article 67 of the Constitution and requested a stay of proceedings until the end of the term in 2027. The court reserved its decision, leaving uncertainty hanging in the air.
Constitutional Immunity Under Scrutiny
The heart of the debate is legal, but eminently political. Article 67 shields the president from prosecution for acts performed in the exercise of his duties. The plaintiffs argue that discriminatory remarks do not qualify as such. A broad interpretation of immunity would amount to total impunity; a narrow one would establish case law limiting the presidential shield. Symbolically, the case crystallizes a deep rift between the Élysée and a segment of the population—one that escapes traditional political channels and thrives in alternative media.
An Uncertain Outcome With Lasting Consequences
Two outcomes are possible. If the stay is granted, the trial will be postponed until after 2027, turning the case into a sword of Damocles. If it is denied, a ruling on the merits could order the president to pay damages, even if only symbolic. Beyond the financial stakes, the principle of presidential accountability would be reaffirmed. Whatever the outcome, this case already marks the legal history of the Fifth Republic by pitting the words of power against ordinary justice.
Une procédure inédite perce le bouclier de l'immunité présidentielle pour citer Macron à comparaître.
lemediaen442.fr
Translated with chatgpt
caliber.az
www.sudouest.fr
