Why Joe Biden's Autopen Pardons Are Probably Legally Valid And Will Stand Despite Action by the Trump White House

President Trump declares Biden’s last minute pardons before leaving office are void due to the alleged use of “autopen.” “Joe Biden did not sign them but, more importantly, he did not know anything about them!”

Biden’s pardons included his family members, Dr. Anthony Fauci, General Mark Milley, and J6 Committee members such as Liz Cheney. There's a lot of hatred between Trump and each of these people, based on public pronouncements on both sides. Can Trump go after them for alleged criminal conduct?

The legal validity of Joe Biden's alleged autopen-signed pardons hinges on a few key factors, but based on current legal precedent and constitutional interpretation, they are likely valid unless proven otherwise in court.

The U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1) grants the president the power to "grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." It does not specify that a pardon must be personally signed by the president or prohibit the use of an autopen-a device that mechanically replicates a signature. Historically, autopens have been used by presidents for various official acts.

For example, Barack Obama was the first to use an autopen for legislation (in 2011), and courts have not invalidated such actions when the president authorized them. The Department of Justice has also recognized autopen signatures as legally sufficient for executive actions, provided they reflect the president's intent.

The main contention around Biden's pardons-issued on January 20, 2025, just before leaving office-is not the autopen itself but whether Biden personally authorized them. Critics, including Donald Trump, have claimed on platforms like Truth Social that Biden was unaware of the pardons, suggesting they were executed by staff without his consent.

If true, this could challenge their validity, as a pardon is an exercise of presidential discretion requiring intent. However, Biden issued a statement on January 20, 2025, explaining his rationale: to shield family members and public figures like Anthony Fauci and Mark Milley from "politically motivated prosecutions." This suggests he was aware of and intended the pardons, undermining claims of unauthorized action unless concrete evidence (e.g., testimony or documentation) proves otherwise.

Legal experts like Peter Shane and Stephen Gillers have argued that the use of an autopen does not inherently void pardons. A federal appeals court ruling from 2024 even noted that pardons don't require a written signature at all-oral pardons could suffice if intent is clear. The Supreme Court's 1866 decision in Ex parte Garland further supports this by describing the pardon power as "unlimited" (except in impeachment cases), not subject to formalities like personal signing. No court has yet struck down Biden's pardons, despite political challenges from Trump and groups like The Heritage Foundation, which allege staff overreach based on digitized signatures from the National Archives.

That said, the controversy isn't settled. Trump's March 17, 2025, claim that the pardons are "null and void" due to autopen use lacks legal weight unless a court agrees. Challenges could argue Biden's mental capacity or awareness (e.g., Missouri AG Andrew Bailey's call for a DOJ probe), but without definitive proof-like a staffer admitting unauthorized use-the pardons stand. Past precedents, like Gerald Ford's preemptive pardon of Richard Nixon in 1974 (signed manually but unchallenged legally), show that preemptive pardons are within presidential power, autopen or not.

In short, Biden's autopen pardons are legally valid as long as he authorized them, which his public statement supports. Any attempt to overturn them would require a court ruling based on evidence of lack of intent, not just the autopen mechanism. As of today, March 17, 2025, no such ruling exists, so they remain in effect. Expect legal battles ahead, though-Trump's team seems poised to push this issue.