Maybe.
Maybe not.
Many commenters and pundits are touting the Supreme Court Ruling in Burdick v. United States and 2024's Biden Admin DOJ admonition to convicted January 6, 2021 rioters, trespassers, paraders etc. as saying a pardon imputes guilt and acceptance of the pardon confesses to it. First, from the Burdick decision:
U.S. Supreme Court
Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915)
Burdick v. United States
No. 471
Argued December 16, 1914
Decided January 25, 1915
236 U.S. 79
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Syllabus
Acceptance, as well as delivery, of a pardon is essential to its validity; if rejected by the person to whom it is tendered, the court has no power to force it on him. United States v. Wilson, 7 Pet. 150.
Quaere whether the President of the United States may exercise the pardoning power before conviction.
A witness may refuse to testify on the ground that his testimony may have an incriminating effect, notwithstanding the President offers, and he refuses, a pardon for any offense connected with the matters in regard to which he is asked to testify.
There are substantial differences between legislative immunity and a pardon; the latter carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it, while the former is noncommittal, and tantamount to silence of the witness.
There is a distinction between amnesty and pardon; the former overlooks the offense, and is usually addressed to crimes against the sovereignty of the state and political offenses, the latter remits punishment and condones infractions of the peace of the state.
211 F. 492 reversed.
The facts, which involve the effect of a pardon of the President of the United States tendered to one who has not been convicted of a crime nor admitted the commission thereof, and also the necessity of acceptance of a pardon in order to make it effective, are stated in the opinion...
And the DOJ as relayed by Politico, December 11, 2024:
Justice Department: Jan. 6 defendants who accept pardons will make ‘a confession of guilt’
However in Lorance v. Commandant, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals stated in a September 2021 decision:
A United States military court-martial convicted Petitioner-Appellant Clint A. Lorance of murder (and a variety of lesser offenses) for actions he took while leading a platoon of soldiers in Afghanistan.
After exhausting his direct appeals, Lorance filed a federal habeas petition challenging his convictions. Lorance now appeals the district court’s dismissal of that petition. The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether Lorance’s acceptance of a full and unconditional presidential pardon constitutes a legal confession of guilt and a waiver of his habeas rights, thus rendering his case moot. This is an issue of first impression in this Court.
We conclude that Lorance’s acceptance of the pardon did not have the legal effect of a confession of guilt and did not constitute a waiver of his habeas rights.
Despite Lorance’s release from custody pursuant to the pardon, he sufficiently alleges ongoing collateral consequences from his convictions, creating a genuine case or controversy and rendering his habeas petition not moot. Accordingly, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we reverse and remand for further proceedings....
....MUCH MORE
So you tell me, Mr. Internet Legal Scholar, LLP.
