Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What legal and historical precedents guide posthumous honors or pardons for disobedient military figures?
Executive summary
Posthumous honors and pardons for military figures rest on a mix of constitutional clemency power, state executive clemency rules, historical practice of presidential pardons for military-related cases, and political judgments about justice or rehabilitation; recent examples include state posthumous pardons like California’s for Sgt. Richard Penry and federal-wide proclamations such as Biden’s pardon of former service-members convicted under Article 125 [1] [2]. Scholars and advocacy groups show competing views: some see posthumous pardons as correcting injustice or changing moral climates (Death Penalty Information Center), while organizations like the New York City Bar condemn pardons of accused or convicted battlefield killers as unprecedented and damaging to military justice [3] [4].
1. Constitutional and legal foundation: the president’s broad clemency power
The U.S. Constitution vests the president with the power to grant pardons and reprieves for federal offenses; presidents have repeatedly used that authority in military-related matters—ranging from mass wartime clemency under Lincoln to modern proclamations affecting service members—illustrating that federal pardons are a constitutional tool for redress or policy [5] [6]. The Department of Defense and the Office of the Pardon Attorney document how presidential proclamations and individualized pardons operate in practice, such as a 2024–25 proclamation pardoning former service-members convicted under a repealed ban on consensual gay sex and the Biden proclamation addressing Article 125 convictions [6] [2].
2. State-level clemency: governors and boards can grant posthumous relief
States have their own clemency systems that can include posthumous pardons; California’s governor granted a posthumous pardon to Medal of Honor recipient Sgt. Richard Allen Penry after local veterans and advocates pressed the case, and the California Constitution delegates clemency authority to the governor with procedural checks like boards or courts in some cases [1] [7]. Local campaigns—sometimes led by veterans’ groups, family members, or even former arresting officers—often drive state posthumous pardons by highlighting rehabilitation issues such as PTSD or perceived injustice [7] [8].
3. Historical precedents: varied uses and long waits
Historically, presidents and governors have used pardons to redress perceived historical wrongs: President Clinton posthumously pardoned Henry Flipper nearly 118 years after his court-martial, and presidents have nominated pardons for controversial figures across eras [9] [5]. Studies of posthumous pardons find multiple rationales—innocence, changed moral or legal climates, or recognition of exemplary character—so precedent includes both corrective justice and symbolic rehabilitation [3] [10].
4. Tension over pardons for “disobedient” or battlefield actors
When pardons involve military personnel accused or convicted of battlefield killings, legal precedent is sparse and controversy intense. The New York City Bar’s report calls recent pardons of officers accused or convicted of battlefield murders “unprecedented” and argues they undercut military justice and rules of engagement; it urges restraint absent clear evidence of innocence or injustice [4]. That stands in contrast with executive uses of clemency framed as correcting overreach or acknowledging service context, showing a sharp split between those emphasizing institutional discipline and those advocating individualized mercy [4] [6].
5. Institutional and political calculations behind posthumous honors
Decision-makers weigh legal standards, evidentiary reviews, political signaling, and constituency pressure: federal proclamations (e.g., pardons for convictions under repealed laws) can be corrective policy gestures, while state pardons often respond to local activism and aims like destigmatizing veterans with PTSD [2] [7]. Advocacy organizations and commissions produce studies that influence public perceptions and legal reviews—Death Penalty Information Center documents shifting patterns and motives in posthumous pardons, highlighting how evolving norms can prompt retroactive relief [3].
6. Practical constraints and procedural routes
Procedurally, relief can come via a governor’s clemency docket, the presidential pardon process through the Office of the Pardon Attorney, or special proclamations that act broadly for classes of convictions; official lists and postings (e.g., Justice Department pardon logs) provide transparency on who received clemency and when [11] [6]. Available sources do not mention specific statutory rules uniquely governing posthumous military honors beyond these executive clemency pathways—those remain rooted in constitutional and state constitutional authorities (not found in current reporting).
7. What this means for future cases: competing norms will drive outcomes
Expect future posthumous pardons for disobedient military figures to be decided at the intersection of legal authority, historical reinterpretation, advocacy campaigns, and political calculation: some actors will press for mercy and reputational repair rooted in changing norms [3] [7], while legal and professional institutions will resist pardons they view as undermining military discipline and accountability [4]. The tension between corrective justice and preserving military rule of law is the central precedent that will shape any new cases [4] [9].