The pardons by Biden came as incoming President Trump has repeatedly attacked Fauci, Milley and the Jan. 6 committee and called for prosecution of his enemies.
Senior U.S. Circuit Judge David Ebel declined to adopt that “draconian” reading of Burdick, saying the statement was an aside, or dicta, in the court’s overall holding on the legal effect of someone’s unaccepted pardon.
Ebel said no court since had ever held that accepting a pardon was akin to confessing guilt and that the ruling instead simply meant that accepting one “only makes the pardonee look guilty by implying or imputing that he needs the pardon.”
Furthermore, “actual innocence” is among the criteria used to determine who should be pardoned.
Legally the SCOTUS ruled that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt
No, they didn’t.
“Accepting pardon is an admission of guilt” is found as dicta (non-binding commentary) in Burdick v. United States (1915).
Recently, the courts explicitly rejected that interpretation.
Furthermore, “actual innocence” is among the criteria used to determine who should be pardoned.