Category: Constitutional Law

“After Trump: The Future of the President’s Pardon Power”

M_fsr.2021.33.5.coverThis is the title of the new issue of the Federal Sentencing Reporter, which is now available online. As explained by the FSR editors in the issue’s introduction, FSR is continuing its tradition of exploring each president’s pardoning practices at the end of their term:

This Issue of the Federal Sentencing Reporter shines a light on the state of clemency today, with an emphasis on the federal system and events of the Trump administration.  This Issue thus continues an FSR tradition of exploring federal clemency practices under each president, starting in 2001 after President Bill Clinton created controversies with final-day pardons.  Over the last twenty years, an array of commentators have analyzed the actions (and inactions) of four presidents, each of whom embraced quite different goals, perspectives, and strategies.  In addition to bringing thoughtful new perspectives to recent events, the articles assembled today by guest editor Margaret Love, the indefatigable advocate, scholar, and former Pardon Attorney, offer a roadmap to, in her words, “restore legitimacy to the pardon power and its usefulness to the presidency.”  The editors of FSR are — once again — deeply grateful for Ms. Love’s efforts and expertise.

I was honored that the editors again asked me to be guest editor of the pardon issue, which (along with a recent RAND study of racial bias in the pardon process) will hopefully provide useful guidance to the Biden Administration in a period when the uses of the power and its administration are being reconsidered.  The abstract of my introductory essay follows:

The guest editor’s introduction aims to provide an overview of Donald Trump’s extraordinary record of pardoning, and a road map to the essays in the Issue. Together the essays discuss ways to restore legitimacy to the pardon power and increase its usefulness to the presidency, by limiting some of the pardon power’s most extreme uses; supplementing the pardon power with statutory mechanisms to reduce prison sentences and mitigate collateral consequences, so that the president is no longer personally responsible for so much routine criminal justice business; and, managing the pardon power in a way that serves the presidency and not the parochial interests of federal prosecutors.

All of these ideas and arguments together suggest that the way to restoring pardon’s democratic legitimacy and usefulness to the president lies in shrinking the portfolio of routine chores for which pardon is now exclusively responsible, and in restoring the independence and stature of the pardon advisory process within the Justice Department. It would be both fitting and deeply ironic if Donald Trump’s irregular and undemocratic pardoning led to a more coherent and meaningful use of the constitutional power in the service of an enlightened presidential policy agenda, to a renewed commitment to the historically close relationship between pardon and the justice system, and even to a transformation of the Justice Department’s unforgiving prosecutorial culture.

Here are the articles in this new FSR issue:

Study reveals potential for racial bias in presidential pardon process

Last week the RAND Corporation published its long-awaited Statistical Analysis of Presidential Pardons, commissioned in 2012 by the Bureau of Justice Statistics to determine whether the Justice Department process for deciding who to recommend for a presidential pardon is tainted with “systematic” racial bias. The RAND study appears to have been a direct response to an investigative report published jointly in December 2011 by ProPublica and the Washington Post, which concluded based on an examination of pardon cases granted and denied during the administration of George W. Bush, that race was “one of the strongest predictors of a pardon.”

Specifically, the ProPublica study concluded that “White criminals seeking presidential pardons over the past decade have been nearly four times as likely to succeed as minorities” while “Blacks have had the poorest chance” of receiving a pardon.

In a 224-page statistical analysis of how pardon petitions were evaluated by the Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA) between 2001 and 2012, the RAND researchers “[did] not find statistically significant evidence that there are racial differences in the rates at which black and white petitioners receive [favorable] pardon recommendations.” (Note that sentence commutations were not a part of the RAND study.)  At the same time, there was also “no question that non-Hispanic white petitioners as a group were more likely to receive a pardon than did black petitioners.”

The apparent contradiction between these two statements can be explained by the fact that white applicants were statistically more likely to satisfy the formal standards that apply to OPA decisions about which cases to recommend for pardon, suggesting that either the formal standards need revision or the pool of applicants needs to be expanded, or both.

To this point, the RAND researchers appeared troubled by the extent to which subjective lifestyle criteria influence the evaluation of pardon petitions under governing policies: “There may well be specific instances, both within our study time frame and without, where conscious or unconscious bias on the part of a member of OPA’s staff influenced the ultimate outcome of a petition, either for or against a grant of pardon.”

This would appear to be an understatement.

The composite profile of a successful pardon applicant that RAND describes, based on its examination of hundreds of OPA casefiles, is a U.S.-born white man in his mid-50s, who committed a white-collar crime in his late 20s and had no criminal activity before or after the conviction, who pled guilty and was sentenced to probation, and who applied for a pardon more than 20 years after he was sentenced. Steady employment, stable family life, charitable activity, military service, recommendations from public officials, and assistance by legal counsel were also found to be statistically valid predictors of success.

Read more

“A Plan to Restructure (and Revive) Pardoning After Trump”

The title of this post is the title of my second piece for Lawfare on the future of presidential pardoning after the unjust and irregular practices that characterized pardoning under President Trump.  In response to critics who urge that responsibility for pardon advice should be removed from the Justice Department, I argue for restoring the pardon program to its historic place as an independent and respected part of that agency, so it can be an effective counterweight to the punitive views of prosecutors that have in the past frustrated pardoning.  Reestablishing a functional institutional connection between the president’s power and the rest of the justice system will better serve both the presidency and the public interest in a more compassionate approach to criminal law enforcement. I suggest that Merrick Garland, whose Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing to become attorney general begins on Monday, will understand how to reset the balance between pardon and justice to the benefit of both.

This is a follow-up to my Washington Post op ed, in which I argued that the presidential pardon power has been burdened with too many routine functions, and that the new administration should seek to restore a degree of practical efficiency to pardoning by working with Congress to reassign many of these functions to the courts — including shortening prison sentences and restoring lost rights.

The second piece is reprinted below:

A Plan to Restructure (and Revive) Pardoning After Trump

The overarching theme that emerges from four years of Donald Trump’s pardoning is an approach to government authority as transactional and personality based, rather than principled, structured, and process based. From the nation’s earliest days, unruly pardon has been harnessed to the rule-of-law virtues of the justice system, secured since the 19th century by its relationship to the Justice Department and by presidents respecting that relationship. Trump ostentatiously rejected that relationship from the start.

Trump not only detached the pardon power from the structure and operation of the justice system but he also used his power to challenge and frustrate that system. His pardons have been described by Bernadette Meyler as a throwback to the theatrical pardoning of the 17th century English kings and playwrights, enlarged and darkened by self-interest.

In the wake of Trump’s abusive and frequently haphazard pardoning, there have been calls to reform the process by which the president receives advice in pardon matters by stripping the Justice Department of its long-standing gatekeeper role. While reform of the pardon process is certainly in order, it would be a profound mistake to institutionalize Trump’s detachment of pardon from the justice system as these reformers urge.
Read more

Are Trump’s Pardons a Blessing in Disguise?

The title of this post is the title of my piece in Lawfare arguing that, in response to President Trump’s reckless pardoning,  Congress should reroute many of pardon’s routine functions into the federal courts. The piece is reprinted below:

Are Trump’s Pardons a Blessing in Disguise?

As President Trump’s irregular and self-serving pardons roll out, incoming President Biden has been urged to repair or replace the process for advising the president on the use of this extraordinary constitutional power.

It makes sense that critics have directed their ire and reform energies toward the mechanics of the pardon process, particularly since President Trump is on the record as disdaining it. But improvements in the process will not solve the problem laid bare by this president’s reckless pardoning. We should instead be asking more basic questions about what if any role the pardon power should play in the ordinary operation of the federal justice system. That system has asked far too much of pardon in recent years, and increased demand has played a major role in the power’s abuse. Congress needs to reroute many of pardon’s routine functions into the federal courts.

Read more

“Trump’s Theater of Pardoning”

The piece reprinted below is the first part of Bernadette Meyler’s contribution to a Symposium published by the Stanford Law Review on her book Theaters of Pardoning. It is as cogent a guide to understanding President Trump’s pardoning practices, and how they differ from those of his predecessors, as anything else we have seen. If, as Prof. Meyler argues, the message sent by Trump’s pardons is “the rejection of law,” it would be ironic (though entirely welcome) if they prompted Congress to reroute into the legal system much of the business heretofore committed exclusively to presidential pardoning, notably relief from the collateral consequences of a federal conviction. Then presidents could pardon to their heart’s delight, without worrying about the inherent unfairness of their actions.

“Trump’s Theater of Pardoning”

by Bernadette Meyler

Introduction

In many ways, President Trump has returned to a performance of pardoning more familiar to early modern England than to contemporary America. Largely eschewing bureaucratic processes, Trump has taken advantage of the political theater that pardoning can provide. Like some of the real-life and fictional kings who appear in my book, Theaters of Pardoning, Trump has also called law and legal regimes into question through his pardons, and, in doing so, asserted his own impunity from law. Ignoring the common law restrictions that had accreted around pardoning, Trump has chosen to interpret his power as absolute, unfettered by norms like refraining from judging in one’s own case and forgiving but not forgetting. And this is only the story of Trump’s formal pardons. As Kenji Yoshino’s essay in this Symposium elaborates, Trump’s numerous revisions of history represent even more pervasive efforts at enacting amnesty and oblivion.

Read more

“The Many Roads to Reintegration”: A 50-state report on laws restoring rights and opportunities

and

We are pleased to release a new report describing the present landscape of laws in the United States aimed at restoring rights and opportunities after an arrest or conviction. This report, titled The Many Roads to Reintegration, is an update and refresh of our previous national survey, last revised in 2018.

The report covers voting and firearms rights, an array of record relief remedies such as expungement and pardon, and consideration of criminal record in employment and occupational licensing.

In each section of the report we assign a grade to each state for each type of relief. We collate these grades to produce an overall ranking on the nine categories that we graded. That ranking is reproduced below.

We are encouraged by the amazing progress that has been made in the past few years toward neutralizing the effect of a criminal record since the present reform era got underway less than a decade ago. The last two years in particular have produced a bumper crop of new laws in almost every U.S. jurisdiction.

Some of our top performers have been long-time leaders in promoting reintegration, including Illinois, Utah, and Minnesota. But some of the most progressive lawmaking has come from states newer to the field, like Nevada, Colorado, and North Dakota. These and the other states in our Top Ten set an example that we hope will inspire other jurisdictions in the months and years to come.

The executive summary of the report is reprinted below. The full report is available in PDF and HTML formats.

Read more

CCRC research featured in Florida felony voting case briefs

Last week, we published our amicus brief in an appeal about the constitutionality of Florida’s system for restoring the vote to people with felony convictions.  We urged the Eleventh Circuit to affirm a district court decision that Florida’s “pay-to-vote” system is unconstitutional, relying on our research report showing that few states have as restrictive a scheme as Florida’s.  Other groups also weighed in, including 19 states and D.C. and several organizations that draw on CCRC’s research to argue in favor of the decision below.  CCRC board members Jack Chin and Nora Demleitner joined a group of 93 law professors who also argued in favor of the district court’s determination that Florida’s scheme is unconstitutional.

Read more

CCRC urges 11th Circuit to uphold Florida felony voting decision

and

Yesterday, we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in a case about the constitutionality of Florida’s system for restoring the vote to people with felony convictions.  We urge the court to affirm the lower court decision’s that declared Florida’s “pay-to-vote” system unconstitutional.  The brief draws on our new 50-state research report to show that Florida’s approach to this issue is an outlier among the states.

We were ably represented by Andrew L. Frey, Scott A. Chesin, and Luc W. M. Mitchell of Mayer Brown and very much appreciate their work.

Our brief is a contribution to high-stakes federal litigation in Florida over that state’s 2018 ballot initiative, Amendment 4, which many expected would restore voting rights to more than a million people disenfranchised because of their criminal record, in some cases for crimes that occurred decades ago.  However, the initiative has been interpreted by Florida’s legislature and supreme court to condition reenfranchisement on payment of all outstanding fines, fees, costs, and restitution, which threatens to drastically limit its anticipated reach.

Read more

Federal judge certifies class for landmark Florida felony voting trial

The monumental felony voting rights case in Florida moves another step forward, expanding in scope.  On Tuesday, the federal trial judge overseeing the case certified a class of all persons who have served sentences for felony convictions, who would be eligible to vote in Florida but for unpaid court debt.  With the trial scheduled to begin via remote communication on April 27, the decision enables the court to issue a ruling on the merits in time for the November election that would apply to the entire class of several hundred thousand (or more) potential Florida voters.

Read more

COVID-19: State-by-state resources on how to use the pardon power

At this time of pandemic, we have been following the discussions of how jail, prison, and immigration detention conditions are highly concerning, including the very useful collection of links provided by Professor Doug Berman, the demands published by advocacy organizations, and the collection of policy responses by the Prison Policy Initiative.  We agree that every available legal mechanism must be enlisted to secure the release of prisoners and detainees who pose little or no threat to public safety, and whose health and safety are themselves severely threatened by their enforced captivity.  This includes the great constitutional powers given to governors and pardon boards.  We therefore commend our newly revised pardon resources to advocates and policy makers to support their advocacy and action.

While our pardon-related research focuses primarily on how the power is used to restore rights and status to those who are no longer in prison, much of our information about how the pardon process is structured and operates is relevant to how the power might be used (or is already being used) to commute prison sentences during the pandemic.  Our revised pardon resources are part of a major revision of the CCRC Restoration of Rights Project, not only to make sure its information is current in light of the many recent changes in the law, but also reorganizing and revising its resources for clarity and easier access.  In the process, we have updated and revamped our state-by-state material on how the pardon process operates in each jurisdiction, noting that the process has become more regular and productive in a few states in the past several years.

Our 50-state pardon comparison is organized into four sections:

  • Section 1 provides a chart comparing pardon policy and practice across jurisdictions.
  • Section 2 lists jurisdictions by frequency and regularity of their pardon grants.
  • Section 3 sorts jurisdictions by how the administration of the power is structured.
  • Section 4 provides state-by-state summaries of pardon policy and practice, with links to more detailed analysis and legal citations.

We hope this information will be helpful to advocates across the country as we work to keep all people safe and healthy, including those in our prisons and jails.

1 2 3 … 10