u/DryOpinion5970

Obviously, yes. Those Section 301 investigations are not real, and because this administration is incompetent, they might simply ask ChatGPT to cook something up.

In Ex Parte Garland (1867), the Supreme Court stated that the President’s pardon power “extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.” For the purposes of this post, I will assume two points:

1. Pardons issued after the commission of an offense but before “legal proceedings are taken” are constitutional.
2. Pardons issued before the commission of an offense are unconstitutional.

What about pardons that were promised before an offense was committed but issued after it, and where that offense was directed by the President?

• Is it the same as (1), because the actual pardon was issued after the commission of the offense and anything that happened before that is legally irrelevant?
• Is it the same as (2), because it is an unlawful workaround of the restriction that the President cannot issue prospective pardons?
• Hybrid of (1) and (2)?

It is possible that this entire hypothetical is purely academic, since under Trump v. United States it would be very difficult to prove the President’s motives for an official act.

---

Related: Judge Andrew Oldham’s opinion for SCOTUS audition stating that a pardon issued by President Biden was of doubtful validity because it did not “serve any public interest.”