The court’s decision comes after weeks of hearings to determine whether Yoon should be officially removed from office, after lawmakers impeached him for temporarily suspending civilian rule. "The verdict on the president's impeachment will be issued on April 4, 2025," the court said in a statement Tuesday.
While the court has until June to make its decision, previous presidential impeachment rulings have typically been issued within weeks. The delay has sparked speculation that the justices may be deeply divided on the matter.
For Yoon to be ousted, at least six of the court's eight justices must vote in favor. The impeachment has sparked ongoing protests, with hundreds of thousands of South Koreans rallying both for and against Yoon in central Seoul every weekend.
Yoon, a former prosecutor, was detained in January on charges of insurrection related to his martial law declaration but was released in early March on procedural grounds. He has remained defiant, accusing opposition forces of launching a "malicious" campaign against him. Yoon is also the first sitting South Korean president to stand trial in a criminal case.
If the Constitutional Court decides to remove him from office, fresh elections will be held within 60 days, with opposition leader Lee Jae-myung currently leading in the polls. Last week, an appeals court overturned an election law conviction against Lee, clearing the way for his potential presidential run. However, if the conviction is reinstated on appeal, Lee could be barred from running for office for five years.
Leif-Eric Easley, a professor at Ewha University in Seoul, suggested that the legal rulings surrounding Lee's case may signal a broader political shift, with the judiciary aiming to resolve the ongoing political crisis through elections rather than court decisions.
In a separate case, the Constitutional Court last week dismissed the impeachment of Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, allowing him to resume his duties as acting president. This ruling, however, is not directly related to Yoon’s impeachment, as it did not address the legality of the martial law declaration itself.