President Trump’s recent declaration that Biden’s pardons signed with autopen are “void” has ignited a legal debate, with constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley suggesting that successful challenges to these pardons remain highly unlikely despite mounting concerns.
Key Facts:
- Former President Joe Biden used an autopen for presidential pardons and other official documents throughout his administration.
- President Donald Trump declared these pardons “void” on Truth Social, claiming Biden “did not know anything about them.”
- Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley stated that the chances of successfully challenging autopen-signed pardons are “vanishingly low.”
- A Heritage Foundation investigation reported that an autopen signature appeared on the majority of Biden’s official documents.
- Speaker Mike Johnson recounted that Biden allegedly didn’t remember signing a 2024 executive order freezing natural gas exports.
The Rest of The Story:
The controversy centers on Biden’s mental acuity during his presidency and whether he was aware of the pardons being signed with an autopen.
While autopens have been used by previous administrations for decades, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel determined in 2005 that presidents may use autopens to sign bills into law.
The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project has challenged this opinion, arguing that if Biden’s “non-delegable official actions were not his own, then they are invalid.”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt questioned whether Biden’s signature was used without his knowledge or consent, suggesting potential illegality if staff members signed documents without presidential approval.
Many are suggesting that the Biden pardons may now be challenged in light of the disclosures of Biden's use of an autopen.The chances of such challenges succeeding are vanishingly low. Presidents are allowed to use the autopen and courts will not presume a dead-hand conspiracy…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 18, 2025
Commentary:
The legal hurdles to invalidating Biden’s pardons based solely on autopen usage appear insurmountable.
As Turley aptly noted, “Presidents are allowed to use the autopen and courts will not presume a dead-hand conspiracy.”
This perspective is rooted in established precedent and practical considerations of governance.
What makes this situation particularly troubling isn’t the technical means of signature but the questions about presidential awareness and intent.
Johnson’s account of Biden appearing unaware of signing a major executive order raises legitimate concerns about who was making decisions.
However, proving such claims would require evidence that staff members acted without presidential knowledge—an almost impossible standard to meet when all parties involved would likely maintain the president was fully informed.
From a legal standpoint, pursuing the autopen angle seems misguided when compared to potentially stronger arguments about the constitutionality of preemptive pardons.
The Constitution’s pardon power has boundaries that remain largely unexplored by the courts, particularly regarding blanket, forward-looking pardons that Biden issued.
While the impulse to challenge these pardons is understandable, particularly for controversial cases, the administration might better serve the country by focusing on forward-looking governance rather than relitigating past presidential actions.
The courts have historically shown great deference to presidential pardon power, and this situation is unlikely to be an exception.
The question is not merely about a mechanical signature but about governance, transparency, and constitutional authority—issues that deserve serious consideration beyond partisan positioning.
The Bottom Line:
The legal challenges to Biden’s autopen pardons face virtually insurmountable odds despite legitimate questions about his awareness of documents he signed.
Courts have historically given presidents wide latitude in exercising pardon powers and are unlikely to invalidate pardons based on the mechanism of signature.
This controversy highlights deeper questions about presidential capacity and the constitutional boundaries of executive power that may warrant congressional investigation but are unlikely to result in voided pardons.
Read Next
– Study Shows Hidden Ingredient Found in Common Herbs May Be Able to Reverse Alzheimer’s
– AARP and UnitedHealthcare: A ‘Shameful’ Partnership Under Fire for Recent Controversies
– Fort Myers, FL City Council Tearfully Holding Hands Blocks ICE Cooperation, Faces Backlash