In a controversial decision that has sent shockwaves through Washington, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has reportedly ruled that 82 of President Joe Biden’s pardons are unconstitutional. The court’s reasoning, according to the ruling, is rooted in a fundamental legal principle: “You can’t pardon people who haven’t been charged with a crime.”
The decision centers on a series of pardons issued by the Biden administration to individuals who, while under investigation or politically targeted, had not yet been formally charged or convicted of any offenses. Critics have long argued that such preemptive pardons stretch — and perhaps break — the constitutional boundaries of presidential power.
Under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the president has the authority to “grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” While this clause has been interpreted broadly over the years, the 9th Circuit’s ruling suggests that there are limits — specifically, that a pardon must be tied to an actual criminal charge or conviction.
Supporters of the court’s decision see it as a necessary check on executive authority. “If a president can pardon people who haven’t even been charged, that power could be abused to grant blanket immunity to political allies before any wrongdoing is proven,” one constitutional scholar explained. This, they argue, would undermine the principle that no one is above the law.
On the other hand, defenders of Biden’s pardons argue that preemptive clemency can be a legitimate tool to prevent politically motivated prosecutions. They point to historical precedents, including President Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon before any formal charges were brought, as evidence that such actions fall within the scope of presidential discretion. “This ruling risks overturning decades of accepted practice,” one legal analyst warned.
The political implications are also significant. Several of the individuals whose pardons were struck down are high-profile figures in politics, health policy, and government service. Opponents of the Biden administration see the decision as a victory for accountability, while allies view it as a partisan attack by a court often criticized for its ideological leanings.
The White House has not yet indicated whether it will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, but legal experts expect such a move is likely. Given the constitutional questions at stake, the high court could be compelled to weigh in, potentially setting a landmark precedent for the limits of presidential clemency.
In the meantime, the ruling raises uncertainty for those whose pardons have been nullified. Without the protection of presidential clemency, they could once again face legal jeopardy, depending on the status of ongoing investigations or charges.
Whether this decision will stand — and what it will mean for the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary — remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the debate over the scope of the presidential pardon power has entered a new and potentially game-changing chapter.
