logo
Opinion - No, Trump can't void Biden's pardons

Opinion - No, Trump can't void Biden's pardons

Yahoo19-03-2025

Reports that President Trump intends to void presidential pardons issued by former President Joe Biden have sparked a wave of legal debate. Although such a move might appeal to Trump's political instincts and base, it is simply not within the realm of legal possibility.
To put it in legalese, it ain't gonna happen.
But just the fact that Trump brought this up is profoundly troubling, because it evinces either an even a more profound lack of understanding of the law or a far more sinister intention.
The presidential pardon power, as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, is one of the most sweeping and unassailable powers granted to the executive branch. It is final, absolute and beyond the reach of any future president or administration to undo. Any attempt by Trump or any other president to revoke a duly issued pardon would not only be unconstitutional, it would also undermine the very principles of executive authority and legal finality that have governed the nation since its founding.
Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the president the power to issue pardons for federal offenses, with the sole exception of cases of impeachment. The text is unambiguous: 'The President shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.' This language has been interpreted by courts and legal scholars alike to mean that once a pardon is granted, it is final. The power does not come with an implied clause allowing a successor to undo or revoke it.
To the contrary, legal precedent makes clear that a presidential pardon is absolute once delivered and accepted.
The Supreme Court affirmed this in Ex parte Garland (1866), ruling that the pardon power 'extends to every offense known to the law and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.'
The court further held that the effect of a pardon is to 'remove penalties and disabilities' and that it 'cannot be limited by Congress.' If Congress, which holds legislative power, cannot restrict or nullify a pardon, it follows that a future president — who possesses no legislative authority — cannot do so either.
The Supreme Court reinforced the irrevocability of pardons in United States v. Klein (1871), a case that dealt with post-Civil War pardons issued by President Andrew Johnson. The court here struck down congressional attempts to interfere with the legal consequences of a pardon, emphasizing that the power to pardon is an executive prerogative that, once exercised, is beyond further review or alteration. The ruling made clear that a valid pardon cannot be disregarded, nor can its legal effects be undone.
Some may argue that because the Constitution does not explicitly state that pardons are irrevocable, a sitting president might have the power to void them. But this argument is a hard no, as it misunderstands both the nature of the pardon power and the constitutional framework.
The absence of explicit language allowing revocation is itself evidence that the power does not exist. The Framers of the Constitution intended for the pardon power to be broad and final, shielding it from political manipulation by successive administrations. To allow one president to revoke another's pardons would turn the pardon power into a mere political tool rather than a fundamental aspect of executive clemency.
The literal and practical mechanics of a pardon illustrate why it cannot be undone. A pardon is not merely a statement of forgiveness; it has legal consequences, including the restoration of rights and the expungement of certain penalties. A person who has been pardoned and released from prison cannot simply be re-incarcerated without new due process. Similarly, a person whose conviction has been nullified by a pardon cannot have their criminal record reinstated without running afoul of constitutional protections.
Of course, revoking pardons would trigger massive legal challenges that the Trump administration would (almost) certainly lose. The courts have consistently ruled against any efforts to restrict or undo the effects of a pardon. If Trump attempted to void pardons issued by Biden, those affected would challenge the move in federal court, and the judicial system would almost certainly uphold the finality of the pardons. Any such legal battle would be a futile exercise, ultimately reinforcing the precedent that a president's pardon is permanent and untouchable by successors.
Beyond the legal and constitutional barriers, there are also serious political and ethical implications to consider. The pardon power has long been understood as a means of granting mercy and correcting injustices, even if a very strong argument can be made that this isn't the case in practice today. If Trump were to attempt to revoke Biden's pardons, it would set a dangerous precedent that could be exploited by future administrations for political retribution.
Presidents could use the threat of revoking past pardons as a means of punishing political opponents or their supporters, effectively weaponizing an authority that was intended to serve justice rather than partisan interests. This would be a destabilizing force in American governance, and would undermine the credibility of the presidency itself.
Ultimately, no matter how much Trump or his allies might wish to erase Biden's pardons, the Constitution does not give him the authority to do so. The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that once a pardon is granted, it is irrevocable. Any attempt to undo a predecessor's pardons would be an unprecedented and unconstitutional overreach, one that would almost certainly be struck down by the courts. In the broader scope of American democracy, allowing one president to void the clemency decisions of another would create chaos and instability, turning the justice system into a political battleground rather than a pillar of fairness and due process.
If Trump truly wants to shape the use of the pardon power, his only legal option is to issue his own pardons moving forward. But as for those granted by Biden, they are legally untouchable, no matter how much Trump may wish otherwise.
Aron Solomon is the chief strategy officer for Amplify. He has taught entrepreneurship at McGill University and the University of Pennsylvania.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

2 New York Representatives Are Denied Access to ICE Facility
2 New York Representatives Are Denied Access to ICE Facility

New York Times

time28 minutes ago

  • New York Times

2 New York Representatives Are Denied Access to ICE Facility

Federal officials prevented two members of Congress on Sunday from entering an immigration detention facility in Manhattan where the representatives were seeking to investigate reports of overcrowding, stifling heat and migrants sleeping on bathroom floors. The representatives, Adriano Espaillat and Nydia Velázquez, both Democrats from New York, said officials at the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building had denied them access to the 10th-floor detention area because it was a 'sensitive facility.' The building, at 26 Federal Plaza, a few blocks from City Hall, has been the site of recent protests against the transport of migrants there by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. It also houses immigration courts where ICE has been making arrests in recent weeks. Members of Congress are allowed special access to any Department of Homeland Security facility, including those operated by ICE, as long as they give at least 24 hours' advance notice, according to visitation guidelines. 'Today, ICE violated all of our rights,' Representative Espaillat said at a news conference on Sunday after being turned away. 'We deserve to know what's going on on the 10th floor.' He added, 'If there's nothing wrong, there's no reason we shouldn't be able to go in to see it.' Representative Velázquez said she was outraged about being turned away. 'Our duty is to supervise any federal building,' she said. 'This is not Russia; this is the United States of America,' she added. 'The president of the United States is not a king.' A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, Tricia McLaughlin, said Sunday evening that the lawmakers had shown up unannounced. ICE officials had told them, she said, that they 'would be happy to give them a tour with a little more notice, when it would not disrupt ongoing law enforcement activities and sensitive law enforcement items could be put away.' The representatives arrived a day after dozens of protesters at the complex tried to block ICE vehicles carrying migrants. Many held up signs, including some that said 'Stop Deportations!' and 'To Get Our Neighbors You Have To Get Through Us!' That demonstration erupted in a clash with police officers, some of whom blasted protesters with pepper spray. The police said 22 people were taken into custody. Most were issued summonses or asked to return to court at a later date, according to a spokesman for the Manhattan district attorney. 'This is the nightmare scenario we've been taught to fear since childhood,' said John Mark Rozendaal, 64, of Manhattan, who has protested at the building over the last three weeks. We need to 'stand up to the repression that's coming into our nation,' he added. Santiago Castro, 28, a student who is from Colombia, said he had come to the demonstration for a personal reason: ICE agents arrested his father in Manhattan on Tuesday. Mr. Castro said he was demonstrating 'for my family.'

Trump Deploys National Guard To L.A. Amid Immigration Protests - Inside Politics with Dana Bash and Manu Raju - Podcast on CNN Audio
Trump Deploys National Guard To L.A. Amid Immigration Protests - Inside Politics with Dana Bash and Manu Raju - Podcast on CNN Audio

CNN

time28 minutes ago

  • CNN

Trump Deploys National Guard To L.A. Amid Immigration Protests - Inside Politics with Dana Bash and Manu Raju - Podcast on CNN Audio

Trump Deploys National Guard To L.A. Amid Immigration Protests CNN Inside Politics 43 mins First: California clashes. Trump deploys the National Guard to crack down on immigration protests. As sources say the president could cut funding for the Golden State. How will this end? And: Breakup. Trump's feud with Elon Musk threatens his coalition. Can the president's agenda survive the onslaught? Congressman Mike Lawler joins us live. Plus: Election night. What will the first big primaries in Trump's second term tell us about how voters feel.

Some LA migrant protests fueled by taxpayer-funded group with Dem ties — another with CCP link
Some LA migrant protests fueled by taxpayer-funded group with Dem ties — another with CCP link

New York Post

time34 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Some LA migrant protests fueled by taxpayer-funded group with Dem ties — another with CCP link

One of the groups leading anti-immigration protests in Los Angeles is a taxpayer-funded activist organization with ties to the Democratic Party, while another has links to the Chinese Communist Party. The Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA) — which received tens of millions of dollars in government grants during the Biden administration — staged a rally last week to denounce Immigration and Customs Enforcement arresting illegal migrants across the city, including those convicted of heinous crimes. 7 CHIRLA staged a rally last week to denounce Immigration and Customs Enforcement arresting illegal migrants across the city. REUTERS Advertisement Protests against ICE escalated since then, with more than 1,000 rioters taking to the streets, assaulting immigration officers, slashing tires and defacing public buildings, the Department of Homeland Security said, prompting President Trump to call in around 2,000 National Guard troops Sunday to quell the violence. According to financial records obtained by DataRepublican, CHIRLA received nearly $34 million in government grants, mostly from the state of California, in the fiscal year ending June 2023, a jump from the $12 million it received the previous year. 7 Protests against ICE escalated since then, with more than 1,000 rioters taking to the streets. REUTERS Advertisement The radical group also received around $450,000 in grants for 'citizenship education and training' between October 2021 and September 2024 from the DHS — the very agency the group was protesting last week. The federal agency cut ties with the group and terminated any further funding in March, including clawing back nearly $101,000 in funding that had yet to be paid out. A CHIRLA spokesman denied that the group had anything to do with the violence in a statement to The Post on Sunday. 7 CHIRLA received nearly $34 million in government grants, mostly from the state of California, in the fiscal year ending June 2023. He said CHIRLA 'organized a press event on Thursday' to protest the round-ups and had 'been sending legal observers to immigration courts and detention centers on Friday, Saturday and today as part of the LA Rapid Response Network. 'We have not participated, coordinated, or been part of the protests being registered in Los Angeles other than the press conference and rally cited above,' the rep said. Advertisement Rioting broke out in LA on Friday as federal authorities resumed the Trump administration's crackdown on illegal immigration, conducting numerous raids in recent weeks and netting 'around 150' arrests, according to Trump's hard-nosed border czar Tom Homan. 7 The radical group also received around $450,000 in grants for 'citizenship education and training' between October 2021 and September 2024 from the DHS. REUTERS Another group that was behind some of last week's protests is the Marxist Party for Socialism and Liberation, which played a part in virulent past anti-Israel campus protests at Columbia University and which was once associated with suspected DC terrorist Elias Rodriguez. PSL has ties to the Chinese Communist Party through funding from socialist billionaire Neville Singham and his wife, Jodie Evans, founder of activist group Code Pink, according to a 2024 report by the Network Contagion Research Institute. Singham sunk millions of dollars into backing the groups after selling his software company, ThoughtWorks, for $785 million in 2017. Advertisement 7 Rioting broke out in LA on Friday as federal authorities resumed the Trump administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. AP Singham's ties to the Chinese government and Communist propaganda are well-documented. The New York Times published a lengthy 2023 expose on his far-reaching money machine, which has steered millions to China-praising nonprofits from South Africa, Ghana and Zambia to Brazil, New Delhi and beyond. The PSL did not immediately respond to a Post request for comment Sunday. Rioters gathered Friday after the recent protests to attempt to stop ICE agents from carrying out the immigration sweeps, leading to officers deploying tear gas and other less-lethal methods of crowd dispersal. 7 Another group that was behind some of last week's protests is the Marxist Party for Socialism and Liberation. REUTERS More than a dozen arrests were made Saturday, said Bill Essayli, the United States Attorney for the Central District of California, on X. Images and videos showed hundreds of protesters clashing with riot gear-clad federal agents who were attempting to apprehend illegal immigrants near a Home Depot in Paramount, Calif. California Gov. Gavin Newsom and embattled Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass decried the raids, the latter claiming the federal agents used tactics that 'sow terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of safety in our city.' Advertisement 7 Rioters gathered Friday after the recent protests to attempt to stop ICE agents from carrying out the immigration sweeps. Jay Calderon/The Desert Sun / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images In a statement on X on Saturday, Newsom wrote, 'Federal government is moving to take over the California National Guard and deploy 2,000 soldiers. That move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions. LA authorities are able to access law enforcement assistance at a moment's notice.' In a fiery response to Newsom and Bass on Truth Social Saturday, President Trump said, 'If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can't do their jobs, which everyone knows they can't, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store