Law Prof to Senators: Trump Can't Pardon Himself
President Donald Trump cannot use his presidential authority to pardon himself, a Yale law professor told lawmakers Tuesday.
September 27, 2017 at 01:42 PM
8 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Mike Scarcella/ALM)
President Donald Trump cannot use his presidential authority to pardon himself, a Yale law professor told lawmakers Tuesday.
Testifying in a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on separation of powers issues, Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School said one of the basic principles of the rule of law is that “no man can be a judge in his own case.” Asked by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, what that meant about the president's power to pardon himself, Amar replied, “He has no such power.”
Sen. Al Franken, D-Minnesota, pushed Amar to clarify his reasoning later in the hearing.
“If you can't be a judge in your own case, you can't pardon yourself,” Amar said. “In the same way you can't be a judge in your own case, you can't be a pardoner in your own case.”
The hearing focused on two bipartisan bills in the Senate aimed at protecting Robert Mueller and future special counsels from being fired by the president without cause. Though the two bills have some different provisions, both provide for speedy judicial review if a special counsel is fired.
Senators peppered a witness panel of four law professors with questions on whether inviting the judicial branch to review executive law enforcement decisions violated separation of powers principles. Amar argued that because the president cannot “make Mueller go away with his pardon pen,” he must retain his ability to fire Mueller under the Constitution, because the special counsel's role is technically an “inferior officer” position that does not require Senate confirmation. He said if Trump could not fire Mueller, the special counsel would no longer be “inferior” within the meaning of the Constitution.
Eric Posner, University of Chicago School of Law professor and son of recently retired Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner, said he was not sure the principle Amar referred to truly exists. But he agreed with the logic, and noted where else it might apply.
“If there is a non-self-dealing principle in the Constitution, then it would forbid both self-pardoning and firing a prosecutor who's investigating you,” Posner said. “The two things are basically the same.”
Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law said the question may not ever play out in real life for political reasons.
Stephen Vladeck
“In practical terms, the answer to that question may remain purely academic, because at the point at which the president is purported to pardon himself, I have to think that that's when the House would seriously consider exercising its impeachment power,” Vladeck said.
One of the bills, S 1735, is sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, Cory Booker, D-New Jersey, Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, and Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut. The other, S 1741, is sponsored by Sens. Thom Tillis, R-North Carolina, and Chris Coons, D-Delaware.
Both were introduced in August when press reports indicated Trump was considering firing Mueller, who is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 elections and possible collusion with the president's campaign. Trump later said he was not considering any such action.
Contact Cogan Schneier at [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter: @CoganSchneier.
Related Articles:
- Trump Wants NFL Players Fired. It's Not That Simple
- Senators Demand Testimony from Equifax CEO in Spite of Retirement
- What Are the Legal Issues in Trump Travel Ban 3.0?
U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Mike Scarcella/ALM)
President Donald Trump cannot use his presidential authority to pardon himself, a Yale law professor told lawmakers Tuesday.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHarris' Promised Ban on Food Price Gouging Could Be Difficult to Implement, Antitrust Experts Say
3 minute readFacebook, Nvidia Make High Court Case Against Investor Suits
Kroger Suit Claims FTC Using Unconstitutional Process to Try to Kill Megamerger
Trending Stories
- 1Mattel Sued Over 'Wicked' Dolls With Pornographic Website
- 2Brown Rudnick’s Brand and Reputation Group Unfazed After Loss of 6 Prominent Partners and Their Big-Name Clients
- 3Fulton Judge Weighs Whether to Order Fani Willis to Comply With Lawmakers' Subpoenas Over Trump Case
- 4Lawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
- 5Judge Rises to Tifton Superior Court Bench
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250