In the ongoing litigation fallout from President Donald Trump’s blanket Jan. 6 pardon, two of his federal appellate appointees just split on the scope of the clemency. While the immediate effect of the split is a ruling against one defendant, the break among Trump appointees previews an uncertain outcome if the subject reaches the Supreme Court for a decision that could have broader impact.
That one defendant is Dan Wilson. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to impede or injure federal law enforcement officers on Jan. 6, 2021, as well as to firearms-related charges stemming from a search of his Kentucky home in 2022.
The Justice Department initially said Trump’s blanket Jan. 6 pardon didn’t cover Wilson’s Kentucky gun charges; he had been erroneously released after the pardon and the government sought his return to custody so he could serve out his gun sentence.
But the DOJ later changed its mind and said the pardon actually does cover the gun charges.
Yet that didn’t end the matter, because U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich — a Trump appointee in Washington, D.C. — said the pardon doesn’t reach that far.
As a reminder, Trump’s blanket pardon was for “offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.”
As a reminder, Trump’s blanket pardon was for “offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” Wilson argued that this language covers his gun charges because the search warrant that led to the firearms was issued to seek evidence related to his participation in the Capitol riot.
After his trial court rejection, Wilson pressed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to try to stay free. But a panel of that court rejected him Wednesday, splitting 2-1, with Judges Cornelia Pillard (appointed by Obama) and Gregory Katsas (appointed by Trump) in the majority, over dissent from Trump-appointed Judge Neomi Rao.
The majority said Wilson hadn’t established a “likelihood of success” in his pardon argument that would warrant release pending appeal. The pardon doesn’t apply “to an offense that is only connected to January 6 by the happenstance that it was uncovered during investigation of the unrelated January 6 offenses,” the majority said.
In her dissent, Rao said Wilson’s claim “presents exceptional circumstances” warranting release. “He raises a novel question implicating the scope of the pardon power, which is vested exclusively in the President,” she wrote. Of course, Trump can essentially override any judicial decision against defendants in these cases by issuing new pardons covering the specific charges at issue. If he were to grant a new one explicitly for Wilson’s Kentucky gun charges, then the courts would have no standing to question it. But whether or not the president extends further relief to Jan. 6 defendants in this case or any others, this latest ruling shows that powerful judges are disagreeing about how far the original blanket pardon goes. So if Trump leaves it up to the courts, then people also on the hook for conduct that’s arguably unrelated to Jan. 6 face an uncertain future. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro," a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
Latest Post
Recommended
