"Pardons do not take effect automatically. More than a century ago, the Supreme Court explained that, for a presidential pardon to be effective, it must be “accepted” by the person offered the pardon. Significantly, as Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in 1833, the decision to accept a pardon is an admission of guilt.
As a consequence, people offered a pardon who insist that they are innocent of the charges have the right to a trial to clear their name. But if they decide to accept the pardon, they convey to the world that they committed the crime and have been spared some of the consequences.
This was made clear in the dismissal of the indictment against Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, whom Trump also pardoned. In agreeing to dismiss the indictment, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan emphasized that Flynn, after twice pleading guilty, had formally “accepted” the pardon. The judge characterized a presidential pardon as a “political decision.” But the pardon “does not, standing alone, render [Flynn] innocent of the alleged violation” of a federal criminal statute. Instead, the judge extensively explained all the reasons why, in fact, Flynn actually was guilty, as his invoking the pardon necessarily acknowledged.
The same principle applies to the pardon that Trump granted Charles Kushner, the father of Trump’s son-in-law, Jared. In 2004, Kushner had pleaded guilty to 18 counts of a federal indictment charging him with illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion and witness tampering. He served 14 months in prison. His pardon does not imply that he was not guilty of those crimes, and it entitles him to no apology for the time he spent in jail. For him to accept the pardon, he must again effectively confirm his guilt."
