# Can Trump pardon minions who refuse to follow judicial/congressional orders? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 26, 2017, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-trump-pardon-minions-who-refuse-to-follow-judicial-congressional-orders/780865 "2017-02-26T19:07:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2017, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-trump-pardon-minions-who-refuse-to-follow-judicial-congressional-orders/780865/21 "2017-02-27T17:43:54Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > Congress would start the impeachment process pretty fast if this kind of shenanigans were going on. A GOP congress? One that agrees with trump and disagrees with Judicial activism? Unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2017, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-trump-pardon-minions-who-refuse-to-follow-judicial-congressional-orders/780865/22 "2017-02-27T17:45:17Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > An impeachable offence is whatever the House of Representatives says is an impeachable offence; no court can review it. SCOTUS has reserved their authority in this, read the decisions. Mind you, they didnt say they _could_, but they also left open the question. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2017, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-trump-pardon-minions-who-refuse-to-follow-judicial-congressional-orders/780865/23 "2017-02-27T20:24:30Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > SCOTUS has reserved their authority in this, read the decisions. > > Mind you, they didnt say they _could_, but they also left open the question. Cite? “High crimes and misdemeanors” are the grounds for impeachment. Misdemeanors are things that are criminal if you or I did them. But high crimes are things that only a high official can do as a result of his/her high position. Even though the pardon power is unlimited, abuse of it could still be considered a high crime. I don’t see how a court could intervene in an impeachment proceedings; that would violate separation of powers and be a new high in judicial activism. Try it out. HR passes an impeachment resolution. The president asks a court to stay the process. Unthinkable. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2017, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-trump-pardon-minions-who-refuse-to-follow-judicial-congressional-orders/780865/24 "2017-02-27T20:38:05Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > Cite? > > “High crimes and misdemeanors” are the grounds for impeachment. Misdemeanors are things that are criminal if you or I did them. But high crimes are things that only a high official can do as a result of his/her high position. Even though the pardon power is unlimited, abuse of it could still be considered a high crime. I don’t see how a court could intervene in an impeachment proceedings; that would violate separation of powers and be a new high in judicial activism. Try it out. HR passes an impeachment resolution. The president asks a court to stay the process. Unthinkable. Well, SCOTUS can interpret the Constitution, yes? Thus they can interpret what "HIgh crimes and misdemeanors’ are. > **[Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure - FindLaw](https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html)** > > The involuntary removal of a sitting President of the United States has never occurred in our history. The only legal way such can be accomplished is by the impeachment process. This article discusses the legal standard to be properly applied by... \*“Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority’s argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of Presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibilities because the Senate has precipitated a crisis.”…This view is echoed by Justice Souter in his concurring opinion in the same case: “If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results…judicial interference might well be appropriate.” Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 253. - Now _you show me_ a cite where SCOTUS has said they have no authority at all. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2017, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-trump-pardon-minions-who-refuse-to-follow-judicial-congressional-orders/780865/25 "2017-02-27T20:47:47Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > “High crimes and misdemeanors” are the grounds for impeachment. Misdemeanors are things that are criminal if you or I did them. But high crimes are things that only a high official can do as a result of his/her high position. It’s an interesting interpretation, but not how the term is actually used. “High crimes and misdemeanors” means high crimes and [high misdemeanors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_misdemeanor), not “misdemeanors and high crimes.” And yes, there was also a category of crimes called low misdemeanors at common law. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2017, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-trump-pardon-minions-who-refuse-to-follow-judicial-congressional-orders/780865/26 "2017-02-27T20:50:15Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s an interesting interpretation, but not how the term is actually used. “High crimes and misdemeanors” means high crimes and [high misdemeanors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_misdemeanor), not “misdemeanors and high crimes.” And yes, there was also a category of crimes called low misdemeanors at common law. Yes, and Perjury can be considered one. So, political as it was, the Clinton case likely would not entail SCOTUS involvement. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2017, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-trump-pardon-minions-who-refuse-to-follow-judicial-congressional-orders/780865/27 "2017-02-28T12:01:07Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Well, SCOTUS can interpret the Constitution, yes? Thus they can interpret what "HIgh crimes and misdemeanors’ are. > > [http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html](http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html) > > \*“Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority’s argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of Presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibilities because the Senate has precipitated a crisis.”…This view is echoed by Justice Souter in his concurring opinion in the same case: > > “If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results…judicial interference might well be appropriate.” Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 253. > > - > > Now _you show me_ a cite where SCOTUS has said they have no authority at all. Those quotes come from individual justices, not a majority SCOTUS opinion. Justice White’s footnote is the one that begins, “Finally, as applied to the special case of the President…” and your own quote identifies Souter’s comment as also not being part of the majority opinion. And the case in which SCOTUS said they have no authority at all? It’s the majority opinion in the same case you mention: > [@](#): > > Petitioner Walter L. Nixon, Jr., asks this Court to decide whether Senate Rule XI, which allows a committee of Senators to hear evidence against an individual who has been impeached and to report that evidence to the full Senate, violates the Impeachment Trial Clause, Art. I, § 3, cl. 6. That Clause provides that the “Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” **But before we reach the merits of such a claim, we must decide whether it is “justiciable,” that is, whether it is a claim that may be resolved by the courts. We conclude that it is not.** > . > . > . > As noted above, that sentence provides that “[t]he Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” We think that the word “sole” is of considerable significance. Indeed, \*\*the word “sole” appears only one other time in the Constitution—with respect to the House of Representatives’ “sole Power of Impeachment.” \*\*Art. I, § 2, cl. 5 (emphasis added). The commonsense meaning of the word “sole” is that the Senate alone shall have authority to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted. The dictionary definition bears this out. “Sole” is defined as “having no companion,” “solitary,” “being the only one,” and “functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2168 (1971). **If the courts may review the actions of the Senate in order to determine whether that body “tried” an impeached official, it is difficult to see how the Senate would be “functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference.”** (emphasis added) That case is _Nixon v. United States_, 506 US 224 (1993). But then, you knew the case cite already. Sole power of impeachment means the House’s power “[has] no companion,” is “solitary,” “[is] the only one,” and “function[s] . . . independently and without assistance or interference.” ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2017, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-trump-pardon-minions-who-refuse-to-follow-judicial-congressional-orders/780865/28 "2017-02-28T22:43:48Z")
But again - a pardon would not exempt a minion from being the target of a civil lawsuit - assuming there’s a victim with sufficient damages and standing to sue? And an actual pardon would likely be evidence of sufficient misconduct to remove qualified immunity? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-trump-pardon-minions-who-refuse-to-follow-judicial-congressional-orders/780865/29 "2017-03-01T02:17:44Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > But again - a pardon would not exempt a minion from being the target of a civil lawsuit - assuming there’s a victim with sufficient damages and standing to sue? Correct. > [@](#): > > And an actual pardon would likely be evidence of sufficient misconduct to remove qualified immunity? Well, no. _Acceptance_ of the pardon might, but I’d want to research the issue of qualified immunity a bit more before making confident declarations. In short: I dunno. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-trump-pardon-minions-who-refuse-to-follow-judicial-congressional-orders/780865/30 "2017-03-02T22:49:11Z")
As I understand, a civil servant receives qualified immunity for doing their job. if they do something well outside the duties, rights and obligations of their job - deliberately and knowingly - then they are not covered. I.e. A policeman who arrests someone and uses somewhat harsh force to subdue a combative subject would be covered. A policeman who arbitrarily attacks a peaceful person viciously for no good reason cannot fall back on qualified immunity. Somewhere between these extremes lies a bunch of court arguments. So similarly, if the minion is doing their job, they are covered. If they have been told by the courts to stop, and they know this, and they carry on for no good reason other than fear, surprise, and a fanatical devotion to the Pope - probably not covered. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-trump-pardon-minions-who-refuse-to-follow-judicial-congressional-orders/780865.md?page=1)