A Federal Judge Questions the Scope of Presidential Pardons in Capitol Riot Cases
In a recent legal development, a federal judge expressed concern over the Justice Department’s evolving stance on the scope of presidential pardons issued to individuals involved in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich criticized the department’s shifting interpretation of whether a pardon granted to Daniel Edwin Wilson, a Kentucky man who stormed the Capitol, also applies to his separate conviction for illegally possessing firearms. The case highlights the complexities of presidential pardons and their legal implications.
Judge Friedrich pressed prosecutors to explain why the Justice Department initially concluded that Wilson’s pardon did not cover his firearms conviction but later reversed its position. She emphasized that the meaning of a pardon should not change over time, calling it “extraordinary” for the department to argue that former President Donald Trump’s pardons for Capitol rioters extend to unrelated crimes, such as illegal possession of firearms. Friedrich’s concerns underscore the importance of clarity in the application of presidential pardons.
The Evolution of the Justice Department’s Position
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Blackwell explained that the Justice Department’s understanding of Trump’s intent behind the pardons had “evolved over time.” She stated that officials recently concluded that Trump intended for Wilson’s pardon to cover both his involvement in the Capitol riot and his firearms conviction. This shift in interpretation has raised questions about the boundaries of presidential authority and the role of the Justice Department in interpreting pardons.
Wilson’s case is particularly notable because he pleaded guilty to conspiring to impede or injure police officers during the riot and to illegally possessing an unregistered firearm. He was sentenced to five years in prison in August 2022. However, he was erroneously released from custody in January after Trump issued pardons to over 1,400 Capitol riot defendants on his first day back in the White House. Wilson is now scheduled to return to prison, but Friedrich has delayed his reporting date while she considers the case.
Legal Arguments and the Authority of the Judiciary
Wilson’s attorney, George Pallas, argued that the judge does not have the authority to interpret the scope of the pardons. He contended that the Justice Department’s interpretation, as presented by Blackwell, essentially spoke for Trump and should not be subject to judicial review. However, Friedrich countered that while she does not question Trump’s authority to issue the pardons, the scope of the pardons must be grounded in their language. She posed the question: “How far afield from the language can it go?”
The judge also questioned why Trump has not issued a “clarifying” pardon to resolve the ambiguity. She emphasized that a pardon cannot be “completely divorced from the text” or subject to reinterpretation over time. Friedrich’s remarks highlight the tension between the executive branch’s power to grant pardons and the judiciary’s role in interpreting their legal implications.
The Broader Implications for Capitol Riot Cases
The Justice Department’s inconsistent application of Trump’s pardons has drawn attention to the broader implications for other Capitol riot defendants. For instance, the department concluded that Trump’s pardon for another rioter, Jeremy Brown, applies to his separate convictions for illegally possessing stolen grenades and classified information. Brown was sentenced to seven years and three months in prison, but the pardon reportedly covers these charges as well.
However, the department has taken a different stance in other cases. Prosecutors moved to dismiss the Jan. 6 charges against Taylor Taranto but continued to prosecute him for unrelated charges stemming from his arrest near former President Barack Obama’s Washington home in June 2023. Similarly, the pardon does not apply to Edward Kelley, who was awaiting trial on Jan. 6 charges when he allegedly developed a plan to kill law enforcement. Kelley was convicted of conspiracy to murder federal employees and is scheduled to be sentenced in May.
The Consequences for Daniel Wilson and Beyond
As Judge Friedrich weighs her ruling, the case of Daniel Wilson remains unresolved. Wilson’s erroneous release from prison following the pardon has further complicated his legal situation. While he is currently scheduled to return to custody, the delay in his reporting date reflects the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the scope of his pardon. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how presidential pardons are interpreted in the future, particularly in cases involving multiple charges and unrelated crimes.
The debate over the scope of Trump’s pardons raises important questions about the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches. While the president’s authority to grant pardons is clear, the judiciary’s role in interpreting the boundaries of such pardons remains a critical issue. As more cases involving Capitol riot defendants come before the courts, the legal system will continue to grapple with the implications of these evolving interpretations.
