"He's Claiming Foul" Trump Challenges Biden's Pardons as "Invalid"
Trump disputes the legitimacy of Biden's presidential pardons
Just before stepping down, President Joe Biden pardoned several individuals, some in advance, including members of the congressional committee investigating the Capitol riots. His successor, Donald Trump, has now declared these pardons as "null and void," claiming they were signed with an autopen and that Biden didn't know a thing about it.
Trump, on his Truth Social platform, said without evidence that Biden didn't personally sign the pardons and they were instead signed with an autopen. He further asserted that neither Biden nor his associates explained or approved the documents. Trump's post alleges that Biden was clueless about the pardons, and his associates may have committed a crime.
However, Trump has presented no evidence that the pardon documents were actually signed with an autopen and not by Biden himself. He also hasn't explained why such signatures would render the pardons invalid.
Autopen-Signed Documents: A Controversial Practice
The use of autopens has been a contentious issue in the past, especially when it comes to pardons. These devices have been common practice for decades, and a U.S. appellate court in 2024 ruled that a pardon doesn't even need to be in writing.
In 1929, the Justice Department stated that the Constitution and law neither prescribe the manner in which the executive's grace is to be exercised or evidenced. This discretion was also followed under Republican President George W. Bush when the use of an autopen was under discussion.
Legal experts, such as Jeffrey Crouch, an expert on presidential pardons, doubt Trump's challenge will succeed in court. Trump said all Biden documents signed with an autopen should be considered invalid, but it's uncertain if the courts will agree.
Precedent for Autopen-Signed Pardons
There is a precedent for the use of autopen signatures in U.S. law, especially in the context of presidential actions. Autopens are machines that replicate a signature, and they've been used by U.S. presidents for various official documents, including legislation and pardons.
Historically, presidents like Barack Obama and George W. Bush have used autopens for official documents. In legal matters, experts such as David Levine, Paul M. Collins Jr., and Kimberly Wehle argue that the use of an autopen is a well-established practice and does not undermine the legitimacy of presidential actions. However, political debates and potential legal challenges may still arise from such practices.
In brief, Trump's claims against the validity of pardons signed with an autopen lack evidence and face doubts from the legal community. The use of such machines for official presidential documents, including pardons, has a longstanding precedent, and experts agree that the use of an autopen does not invalidate a pardon. Nonetheless, political debates and potential legal challenges may still ensue.
- The European Union, echoing Joe Biden's commitment to the Paris Agreement, affirms its intention to implement the same, disregarding Trump's previous claims of the agreement's invalidity.
- In a surprising turn of events, Trump, on his Truth Social platform, asserted that the pardons signed by Biden during his final days in office might be invalid, given they were allegedly signed with an autopen.
- Despite Trump's allegations, legal experts like Jeffrey Crouch, an authority on presidential pardons, remain skeptical about Trump's challenge in court, likening the situation to the lack of success Trump might face in contesting autopen-signed pardons as invalid.
