By Jenna Ellis for DAILY CALLER
The controversy surrounding former President Joe Biden’s use of an autopen to sign pardons has fueled a political and legal debate. President Donald Trump and his allies argue that these pardons are “void” because Biden did not personally sign them. However, legal experts overwhelmingly reject the claim that just the use of an autopen invalidates a pardon.
The more significant issue, and the one that could raise real constitutional concerns, is whether Biden himself authorized the pardons — or whether they were issued without his knowledge or without him having the requisite intent to grant clemency.
Autopen use: a non-issue in presidential authority
The use of an autopen is not new. Presidents Harry Truman, Gerald Ford and Barack Obama have all used autopens to sign various documents, including laws and official orders. In 2011, while abroad, Obama even used an autopen to sign an extension of the Patriot Act, which may have run afoul of the presentment clause in Article 1, though the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel has previously affirmed that a president can lawfully sign legislation with an autopen as long as he authorizes its use. The Constitution does not specify a method of signing pardons, and historical precedent supports the idea that the president likely does not have to physically pen his name.
Thus, any argument that Biden’s pardons are “void” only because they were signed with an autopen likely will not prevail. Courts would uphold these pardons based on past practices and legal opinions. But that does not end the inquiry into Biden’s pardons specifically.
