This Day in Legal History: Ford Grants Nixon Pardon
On September 8, 1974, President Gerald R. Ford granted a full and unconditional pardon to former President Richard M. Nixon for any crimes he may have committed while in office, specifically those related to the Watergate scandal. The announcement came just one month after Nixon resigned in disgrace, becoming the first U.S. president to do so. Ford, who had only recently assumed the presidency, delivered the pardon via a televised address, explaining that he hoped to heal the nation’s wounds and end the "long national nightmare." The decision was met with swift and widespread controversy.
Critics accused Ford of striking a backroom deal with Nixon—trading the presidency for a guarantee of legal immunity. The move damaged Ford’s credibility and likely contributed to his loss in the 1976 presidential election. Supporters, however, argued that the pardon was necessary to move the country forward and prevent a divisive, prolonged legal spectacle. Legally, the pardon was grounded in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants the president broad clemency powers for federal offenses. Importantly, Nixon had not been formally charged at the time of the pardon, making it a preemptive act.
The pardon set a precedent for the scope of presidential pardon powers, later cited in legal arguments involving other controversial figures. It also fueled lasting debates about executive accountability and the limits of legal immunity for high-ranking officials. Public opinion at the time was largely against the decision, but historical reassessment has yielded more nuanced views. Ford later received the Profile in Courage Award in 2001 for the pardon, which some historians came to see as a politically costly but morally principled decision. The moment remains a defining one in the legal and political legacy of both Nixon and Ford.
Luigi Mangione, accused of murdering UnitedHealth Group executive Brian Thompson, argued in a court filing that federal prosecutors unfairly prejudiced potential jurors by linking him to a separate mass shooting. Prosecutors had previously claimed Mangione inspired Shane Tamura, who killed four people and himself at the offices of Blackstone and the NFL. Mangione's attorneys countered that there is no evidence Tamura was influenced by either Mangione or his anti-health-insurance-industry writings. They accused the government of deliberately trying to bias jurors and undermine Mangione’s right to a fair trial.
The government cited Tamura in response to Mangione’s request for more details on what prosecutors might argue during a potential capital sentencing phase. Prosecutors claimed that Mangione’s alleged ability to inspire vigilante violence demonstrates his dangerousness and supports their pursuit of the death penalty. However, Mangione rejected any link to Tamura and called the connection politically motivated. His legal team reiterated its demand for more information on the government's death penalty theory. U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett will determine whether the prosecution must share additional details at this stage.
Luigi Mangione Says Linking Him to Blackstone Killer Biases Jury
The Trump administration has announced plans to deport Kilmar Abrego, a Salvadoran migrant at the center of a high-profile immigration case, to Eswatini, a country in southern Africa with which he has no ties. Abrego is currently detained in Virginia and previously faced deportation to Uganda, but the destination was changed after he claimed fear of persecution there. A Department of Homeland Security official dismissed his claims, citing that he has alleged fear of persecution in over 20 countries.
Abrego was initially deported to El Salvador in March despite a court order blocking the move, prompting criticism of the administration’s handling of his case. He was later returned to the U.S. in June to face federal charges of transporting undocumented migrants, to which he has pleaded not guilty. His attorneys argue that the prosecution is retaliatory and aimed at coercing a guilty plea. They also revealed that the government offered to send him to Costa Rica if he accepted a plea deal, or to Uganda if he refused.
Abrego, who had been living in Maryland with his American wife and children, has become a symbol in the broader debate over immigration enforcement. The administration previously used deportation flights to Eswatini for people labeled too dangerous for their home countries to accept, raising further concerns about Abrego’s treatment.
Trump administration says migrant Abrego could be deported to Eswatini | Reuters
The Trump administration has officially ended its legal defense of a rule, created under President Biden, that banned employee noncompete agreements. These agreements prevent workers from joining competing businesses or starting their own in the same industry. On Friday, the Justice Department moved to dismiss two appeals in federal courts that challenged rulings striking down the 2024 Federal Trade Commission (FTC) rule. The decision was widely expected after Trump-appointed FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson, a critic of the rule, indicated earlier this year that the agency was reviewing its legality.
The dropped appeals mean courts will not rule on whether the FTC has the authority to implement broad nationwide bans under its antitrust mandate. The original FTC rule had cited evidence that over 20% of U.S. workers are bound by noncompete clauses, which it argued restrict worker mobility and depress wages. However, Ferguson and other Republicans maintain that the FTC lacks the rulemaking power to impose such sweeping bans.
The legal challenges were brought by a marketing firm, a real estate developer, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other business groups. During Trump’s first term, his administration held that although some noncompete clauses might be illegal, the agreements as a whole were not. Meanwhile, the FTC announced a new enforcement action against a major pet cremation company, accusing it of using unlawful noncompetes, including for low-wage workers.
Trump administration drops defense of ban on employee 'noncompete' agreements | Reuters
The Trump administration is preparing backup plans to continue imposing tariffs if the Supreme Court rejects its current legal basis for doing so. After losing in lower courts, Trump is asking the Supreme Court to uphold his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1970s national security law that appellate judges ruled does not authorize tariffs. In the meantime, White House officials have been quietly exploring other legal tools for months, anticipating potential judicial pushback.
Two key alternatives under consideration are Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Section 232 allows the president to raise tariffs if certain imports are found to threaten national security—many of Trump’s existing tariffs fall under this provision and wouldn't be directly affected by the IEEPA ruling. Section 301 permits the U.S. trade representative, under presidential direction, to take action in response to unfair trade practices. However, neither law offers the speed and flexibility that IEEPA provided, and each comes with legal and logistical hurdles.
Trump’s legal team and advisers remain confident that the Supreme Court, with a conservative majority that includes three of his appointees, might still side with him. But regardless of the legal outcome, the administration is determined to maintain a public and political case for Trump’s tariff powers, framing them as essential to national security and foreign policy goals. These legal uncertainties are complicating U.S. trade negotiations, as foreign governments remain cautious and unconvinced that the court case will significantly shift the U.S. position.
The White House is exploring how to keep Trump's tariffs if the Supreme Court strikes them down
