Can Biden Unpardon Those People That Trump Pardoned on His Final Day?

Introduction

The question of whether a new president can unpardon individuals who were pardoned by a predecessor is a complex one with deep constitutional roots. This article explores this issue, examining the principles behind pardons, the legal barriers involved, and the historical context. By understanding these elements, we can better comprehend why pardons by one president cannot be undone by another.

Understanding Pardons

Pardons are a well-established presidential power, granted to convey mercy and demonstrate the pardoning authority's leniency. When a president grants a pardon, it is for a specific crime, and once signed, it becomes a permanent action. This means that the person cannot be tried for that specific crime again, due to the principle of double jeopardy.

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects against being tried twice for the same offense ('Double Jeopardy'). This is a fundamental principle in the legal system designed to prevent the government from repeatedly prosecuting a person for the same crime, even if the previous trial ended in an acquittal or pardon.

Furthermore, pardons are not a blanket amnesty but a specific representation of mercy for a particular crime. They are not meant to cover all and any charges but only specific actions or circumstances. This is why once a pardon is granted, it cannot be revoked.

Historical Precedents and Legal Context

The history of pardons is expansive, and the issue of un-pardoning has been addressed before. One notable historical incident was the controversy surrounding Bill Clinton's pardons, which led to the term 'PardonGate.' Despite the questionable behavior exhibited by the Clintons, the pardons were ultimately validated. This further reinforces the permanence of pardons once they are issued.

It is also important to consider the legal and constitutional implications. For instance, in the case where a president attempts to unpardon an individual, it would likely trigger a legal challenge involving the principle of double jeopardy. If a pardon is revoked, the person would potentially have the right to appeal this decision, and the Supreme Court would likely intervene as the ultimate arbiter.

The Practical Implications

Even without legal precedent, the practical implications of attempting to unpardon someone would be significant. A new president would need to justify such a move, which could involve demonstrations of overreach and potential political motivations. For example, if the attempt to unpardon is perceived as corrupt, it could lead to further scrutiny and legal challenges based on the corrupt act doctrine.

Moreover, the Supreme Court (SC) would likely follow established precedent and tend to maintain the status quo. The SC has never before faced a situation where a previous pardon has been un-pardoned by a subsequent president, which means they would be unlikely to overturn an existing pardon without a compelling argument.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the principle of double jeopardy and the constitutionality of pardons make it impossible for a new president to un-pardon individuals who were pardoned by a predecessor. This is a fundamental aspect of the U.S. legal and political system, designed to protect against abuse of power and uphold the sanctity of pardons. Any attempt to un-pardon in the future would face significant legal and political hurdles.