President Donald Trump publicly declared that several pardons issued by former President Joe Biden were “void” because they were allegedly signed using an autopen, a mechanical device that replicates a person’s signature. Trump claimed that Biden was unaware of these pardons, stating they were “void, vacant, and of no further force or effect.”
The pardons in question included preemptive clemency for members of the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack, as well as individuals like Dr. Anthony Fauci and General Mark Milley.
Legal experts swiftly refuted Trump’s assertions, emphasizing that the U.S. Constitution grants the president the power to issue pardons without specifying the method of signature. The use of an autopen has been deemed legally acceptable, provided it reflects the president’s intent. A 2005 Department of Justice opinion affirmed that a president may direct a subordinate to affix their signature using an autopen.
Furthermore, constitutional scholars highlight that once a presidential pardon is granted and accepted, it is considered final and cannot be revoked by a succeeding president. David Super, a law professor at Georgetown University, described Trump’s argument as “absurd,” noting that the Constitution does not require signatures for pardons.
Despite the lack of legal basis, Trump’s claims have sparked discussions about the validity of electronic signatures. However, experts affirm that electronic signatures, including those made with an autopen, have been legally valid for decades under laws like the E-Sign Act of 2000, which some reports may not have had access or knowledge of at the time of Trump’s views on the pardons.
While President Trump has expressed a desire to void certain pardons issued by President Biden, legal consensus maintains that these pardons remain valid and enforceable under constitutional law.
