Autopen Pardon Challenge: Full Mock Legal Filing
Mock Court Filing
Introduction: The Legal Debate Over Autopen-Signed Pardons
Arguments for and against
The use of autopen-signed presidential pardons has sparked significant legal debate. In this lawsuit, we challenge the constitutionality of autopen-signed pardons issued by President Joe Biden. The central issue is whether such pardons, signed mechanically by an autopen rather than by the president’s own hand, violate the U.S. Constitution, which grants the president exclusive authority to grant pardons—a personal, non-delegable power.
Arguments in Support of the Lawsuit
The argument in support of the lawsuit is grounded in the belief that the pardon power is personal to the president and cannot be delegated, even to a mechanical device like an autopen. Key constitutional principles support this position:
Personal Involvement: Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the president the power to issue pardons, emphasizing that this power must be exercised personally. The act of clemency reflects the president's personal intent and judgment. The autopen, by substituting the president’s direct involvement, undermines this personal element.
Separation of Powers: As established in INS v. Chadha (1983), the separation of powers doctrine prevents the delegation of essential executive functions. The pardon power, being a quintessential executive function, cannot be delegated to an automated device without violating the constitutional structure.
Relevant Case Law: United States v. Klein (1871) and Myers v. United States (1926) both reinforce that executive powers, including the pardon power, must be exercised by the president personally. The use of an autopen to sign pardons bypasses this personal involvement, violating both the intent and the spirit of these precedents.
Arguments Against the Lawsuit
On the other hand, defenders of the autopen may argue that it is merely a procedural tool used to facilitate the signing process and does not alter the substantive decision-making of the president. The autopen simply replicates the president’s signature, they may contend, and therefore does not delegitimize the act of granting clemency.
Executive Convenience: Supporters could argue that, like other administrative tools (e.g., digital signatures), the autopen is simply a time-saving measure. Since the president has already made the decision to grant a pardon, using an autopen to physically sign the documents is not a violation of his intent or authority.
Precedents in Legislative Signatures: It could be pointed out that the autopen has been used by previous presidents to sign non-controversial documents, including bills and proclamations, without legal challenge. Thus, the autopen could be seen as a standard administrative device, not a violation of constitutional powers.
Closing: Supporting the Lawsuit
Despite these counterarguments, the core of the lawsuit remains rooted in the constitutional principle that the pardon power is personal to the president. While administrative tools may be used for non-substantive executive actions, pardons are deeply tied to the president’s intent and judgment. The autopen dilutes this personal involvement, which the Founding Fathers intended when they granted the president such a weighty responsibility.
Furthermore, the separation of powers doctrine, as underscored by INS v. Chadha and Myers v. United States, affirms that such core executive powers must not be delegated. The autopen erodes this principle by allowing a machine to act in place of the president’s direct will.
Ultimately, this lawsuit seeks to restore the integrity of the presidential pardon process and ensure that clemency decisions are made in line with the constitutional framework that preserves the personal judgment of the president. The Court’s ruling on this matter will have important implications for executive power, presidential authority, and the constitutional separation of powers.