President Biden issued a pardon for his son, Hunter Biden, on Sunday night, covering all crimes committed since January 1, 2014. This decision has not silenced the ongoing legal battles, as Special Counsel David Weiss and his colleague, Leo Wise, continue to oppose the dismissal of cases against Hunter on principle.

Hunter Biden’s legal troubles have been well-documented; he faced convictions on firearms charges in Delaware in June related to a gun permit application where he falsely denied being a habitual drug user. Furthermore, he pled guilty in California to late tax payments between 2016 and 2019. His sentencing in these cases was pending before the president’s pardon altered the course of events.

In his official statement regarding his son’s pardon, President Biden highlighted the political motivations behind the charges, noting that they arose after pressure from political adversaries in Congress. He asserted, “From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my word.” He emphasized that Hunter Biden’s situation was an example of selective prosecution, pointing out that individuals with similar circumstances usually do not face such severe penalties.

The ten-year scope of the pardon is particularly noteworthy as it coincides with a shift in power within the Justice Department, which will soon be influenced by former President Trump’s supporters. These individuals have indicated their intention to prosecute Hunter for alleged violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The breakdown of Hunter’s initial plea deal can be attributed to Special Counsel Weiss reneging on assurances that federal prosecution for FARA would not follow his guilty pleas for the firearm and tax charges.

Upon issuing the pardon, Hunter Biden filed notice in both Delaware and California, asserting that the president’s decision effectively renders the pending legal proceedings moot. His attorney, Abbe Lowell, asserted that the courts must dismiss the indictment against Hunter, highlighting that the pardon necessitates the termination of ongoing proceedings.

However, Weiss, appointed during the Trump administration, has pushed back against this assertion. He articulated in California that “there is no binding authority on this Court which requires dismissal,” emphasizing a precedent in this jurisdiction where indictments are not dismissed merely due to a pardon. Weiss noted that typically, once a pardon is filed, the court updates the docket entry to reflect the clemency grant without further proceedings.

As the legal saga continues, Judge Mark Scarsi of the Central District of California has yet to take action, while Judge Maryellen Noreika in Delaware has indicated her intent to terminate proceedings and has requested the government’s position on the matter. The government is expected to oppose this termination, though no official objections have yet been noted.