Ah, the 9th Circus Court of Appeals with another politicized activist decision.
What this would mean is that if someone convicted erroneously who was later granted a pardon righting the wrong would be treated as a convicted felon. The decision could conceivably result in a number of folks who have had pardons losing their jobs, their right to vote, sit on a jury, hold professional licenses, etc., because they've been "re-felonized" by the 9th Circus.
What the Court has done has reduced a Pardon to a mere commutation of a sentence. This is, IMO, a usurpation of the power of the President to pardon that is (A) not lawful, and (B) not just. The pardon power exists, ideally, to restore folks who have made a mistake, and to undo the work of Courts as a result of an erroneous verdict that the Courts, for whatever reason, will not reverse. A Pardon is more than a Commutation of Sentence; it's restoring a person to a state as if they never committed the act.
This decision is not sui generis; it becomes a precedent for the entire 9th Circuit. Indeed, it will be a national precedent if it is upheld by the Supreme Court. I don't know about you, but this isn't my idea of a Freedom Decision, much as I loathe Arpaio.
Overdramatic much? As the District Judge pointed out in their opinion, a pardon certainly frees an individual from any and all punishment for the offense. So a felon who is pardoned will get out of jail AND have their voting rights, right to own firearms, etc. restored.
All the court is saying her is that a pardon does NOT also entitle a person to what would amount to an automatic expunction of their record. Expunction is a separate process that involves the actual destruction of records pertaining to a case.
Yes, the presidential pardon power is, in theory, an important check on judicial overreach. But the executive does not have the power to order the judiciary to reverse its decisions or to alter its record of the facts. This is basic separation of powers stuff.
