The International Bar Association (IBA) has expressed significant concerns over a series of recent pardons issued by former President Donald Trump. These pardons, numbering approximately 1,500, were granted to individuals involved in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. Amongst those pardoned are 14 members of militia organizations, as well as a “blanket pardon” for many others. This action has prompted a strong response from the IBA, which views these pardons as a deviation from the constitutional requirement that such powers be exercised in the public interest. More details can be found in the report by JURIST.
In addition to these pardons, Trump has issued pardons over the past three months to other groups, including pro-life activists who blockaded abortion clinic entrances and former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, convicted of corruption in 2011. Critics, such as Matt Kaiser, Co-Chair of the IBA’s Criminal Law Committee, argue that while the constitutional power to pardon is clear, its execution should align with public and national interests, which they assert these recent actions do not.
Law experts like Harold Kent from Illinois Institute of Technology’s Chicago-Kent College of Law have criticized these pardons for appearing self-serving. The criticisms extend to President Joe Biden, who, in his final weeks in office, granted pardons to his son, Hunter Biden, for various federal offenses. Such use of pardoning power, according to Rachel Goodman from the nonprofit Protect Democracy, essentially licenses behavior that undermines the rule of law.
The conversation around these pardons touches on broader implications for the rule of law within the United States. The principle dictates that legal decisions should be predictable and apply equally to all, including government officials. Past rulings, such as the US Supreme Court’s decision to grant presidential immunity from criminal acts, have already sparked debates around this issue.
While some call for constitutional amendments to limit presidential pardons, voices like Kaiser caution against such reforms. He argues that the pardon power acts as a necessary check on other branches, warning against hasty changes that might unduly constrain presidential discretion in this domain. Despite the potential for abuse, the ability to extend mercy is viewed as a crucial part of the executive function. Further exploration of the potential impacts of these pardons on legal norms is ongoing.