Pardons don't need signatures, 2024 appellate court rules

A recent court decision has established that presidential pardons do not need to be signed or even written down to be valid. This ruling comes from a 2024 appellate court case, Rosemond v. Hudgins. The decision emphasizes that the U.S. Constitution does not specify any formal requirements for granting pardons, apart from an exception for impeachment cases. Former President Donald Trump criticized President Joe Biden's pardons on social media, claiming they were void because they were signed using an autopen, a machine that replicates signatures. Trump argued this meant Biden was unaware of the pardons and that those involved may have committed a crime. However, the court's ruling suggests that while a written document is typically used to prove a pardon has occurred, it is not legally required. The Fourth Circuit Court reiterated that the Constitution grants the president the power to grant pardons without a need for any specific formality. The decision also clarified that autopen signatures are acceptable for pardons, as there is no explicit requirement for a signature in the constitutional text related to clemency. Nevertheless, there still needs to be some form of acknowledgment from the President that a pardon is being granted. This ruling raises questions about the accountability of the President in the pardon process, highlighting the need for the President's involvement in declaring a pardon valid.