January 27, 2025
Below is a hypothetical of what that might look like if we the people had to take this issue up on our own (notwithstanding potential standing arguments). Just a little something I quickly put together.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WLBJ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, in his official capacity as President of the United States,
[OTHER NAMED CABINET MEMBERS],
Defendants.
Case No. ________
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This lawsuit challenges the validity of certain presidential pardons and executive actions issued by Joseph R. Biden (“President Biden”), just prior to his leaving the presidential office, on the grounds that he lacks (or lacked) the mental capacity to knowingly exercise the constitutional power to grant reprieves and pardons. Plaintiffs allege that former President Biden’s cognitive decline—as seen by recently revealed evidence—has produced reckless or unintentional pardons, including the release of dangerous offenders.
2. Plaintiffs assert that multiple members of the Administration and other federal officials knew or should have known that President Biden’s severe cognitive decline rendered him unable to fulfill the powers and duties of his office, in contravention of the Constitution, relevant statutes, and public policy. Despite this knowledge, Defendants permitted him to remain in office, thereby affecting domestic and foreign policy decisions, including the granting of pardons that may be constitutionally invalid for lack of presidential capacity and the escalation of foreign conflicts that threaten Plaintiffs’ rights and safety.
3. New public statements from Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal and others have disclosed that at least one of the individuals pardoned was, in fact, a convicted double murderer (the killing of a mother and child). Senator Blumenthal has characterized this as a “massive mistake,” underscoring the possibility that President Biden was unaware he had included a violent offender among those pardoned.
4. These revelations reinforce earlier evidence. For instance, House Speaker Mike Johnson recounted how President Biden denied knowledge of having signed an executive order pausing Liquefied Natural Gas (“LNG”) exports. That denial suggested the President may not even realize which documents he is signing—raising the specter that other unauthorized individuals might be driving major presidential decisions and pardons. Plaintiffs maintain that the President’s lack of personal awareness or capacity renders these acts constitutionally void.
5. The persistent refusal of executive officials to remedy this situation—by failing to invoke the 25th Amendment or any other mechanism for dealing with presidential incapacity—means that dangerous criminals may have been erroneously released, posing a significant risk to public safety and violating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and statutory protections.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this case raises questions under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
6. This Court has authority to grant declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202 (Declaratory Judgment Act), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706 (Administrative Procedure Act, to the extent it might apply to certain implementing procedures), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.
7. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because Defendants are federal officials acting in their official capacities, and a substantial portion of the challenged conduct or its effects have occurred within this District.
III. PARTIES
8. Plaintiff WLBJ is a U.S. citizen, taxpayer, and resident of a community where violent offenders have allegedly been released under President Biden’s questionable pardons. WLBJ brings this action individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, claiming direct and imminent harm from the alleged incompetent or unauthorized issuance of pardons.
9. Additional class members include:
1. Victims or families of victims who have directly suffered from the release of dangerous, previously incarcerated offenders.
2. Citizens residing in neighborhoods where violent offenders have returned, raising credible concerns about public safety (a “state-created danger”).
3. Individuals with an interest in ensuring that Article II powers are exercised by a President who actually understands his actions.
10. Defendant Joseph R. Biden was President of the United States. Plaintiffs allege he suffers from acute cognitive decline, rendering him unable to grasp the nature and effect of official acts, including pardons.
11. Defendant [and unknown cabinet members]: Plaintiffs allege that these officials were or should have been aware of the President’s alleged mental incapacity, assisted in drafting or facilitating pardons under false pretenses, or prevented any effective remedy (such as invoking the 25th Amendment).
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. Previously Established Incidents: LNG Executive Order & January 6 Pardons, Preceding Mental Decline
12. Plaintiffs incorporate the facts previously pleaded regarding House Speaker Mike Johnson’s first-hand account. Speaker Johnson detailed a private Oval Office conversation where President Biden denied having paused LNG exports—even though there was a presidential order to that effect. Speaker Johnson concluded the President “genuinely did not know what he had signed.”
13. Plaintiffs allege this confusion is not isolated. There are credible reports suggesting January 6–related pardons and other high-stakes presidential acts might have similarly been executed without the President’s knowing involvement, thereby jeopardizing accountability and public trust.
14. Evidence of Cognitive Decline: Over the past several months (and perhaps longer), President Biden has exhibited widely reported signs of confusion, disorientation, memory lapses, speech difficulties, and an inability to respond coherently to basic questions. Publicly available video recordings, news reports, and eyewitness accounts have documented numerous episodes raising serious doubts about his mental acuity.
B. New Disclosures Regarding a Double Murderer’s Pardon
15. In a recently surfaced transcript, it was revealed that Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) expressed shock that one of the individuals President Biden allegedly pardoned was, in fact, a convicted killer of a mother and her child. The Senator described this as a “massive mistake,” casting doubt on whether the President actually intended to grant clemency to such a violent offender.
16. Public statements by commentators and officials question whether the certain individuals might have misrepresented the offender’s status as a “non-violent drug offender,” thus sneaking the individual’s name into the batch of pardons under the guise of prosecutorial or sentencing reform.
17. Some have called for an immediate investigation into how these pardons were prepared and whether President Biden “was compis mentis” (of sound mind) at the time he signed them.
C. Procedural Irregularities and DOJ Involvement, Failure to Invoke The 25th Amendment
18. Evidence may also indicate that certain former Department of Justice officials, former cabinet staff may have had a role in drafting these pardons, especially those signed at the end of the President’s tenure. Questions abound as to whether the Biden Justice Department can or must, or felt they had to “execute” the pardons due to Biden’s late or possibly irregular process, further casting doubt on their legitimacy.
19. Plaintiffs allege that the Biden White House’s internal process has systematically concealed the President’s cognitive inability to parse pardon recommendations, effectively placing the final decision in the hands of subordinates or outside activists. This scenario, if proven, contravenes the Constitution’s vesting of the pardon power in the President personally.
20. Failure to Invoke the 25th Amendment: Despite constitutional mechanisms allowing the Cabinet and Vice President to declare the President “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” no such formal step was taken—despite repeated calls by members of Congress, political figures, and concerned citizens to examine his mental fitness.
21. In February 2024, Special Counsel Robert Hur concluded the investigation into President Joe Biden's handling of classified documents. In his report, Hur noted that, during interviews, Biden appeared as "a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory." Hur expressed that, at trial, Biden would likely present himself similarly, making it challenging to convince a jury to convict him of a serious felony requiring willful intent. Consequently, Hur recommended against pursuing criminal charges.
22. This characterization of Biden's memory and age was a significant factor in the decision not to prosecute. The report highlighted instances where Biden struggled to recall key personal milestones, such as the dates of his vice presidency and the death of his son, Beau. These memory lapses contributed to the assessment that proving willful intent would be difficult.
23. The report's portrayal of Biden's mental acuity sparked controversy. White House officials criticized the inclusion of such language, deeming it inappropriate and prejudicial. Attorney General Merrick Garland defended the report's release, emphasizing the importance of transparency and the need to avoid any appearance of political interference.
24. The totality of the allegations herein indicate that Hur may have downplayed the seriousness of the former president’s decline or that the situation has rapidly grown much worse, requiring the court’s immediate intervention and review.
V. STANDING AND INJURY
25. Injury in Fact: Plaintiffs face imminent and concrete harm from these allegedly incompetent pardons:
26. Public Safety Threat: The release of a double murderer, for example, directly endangers the safety of law-abiding citizens in any community where this individual might reside or travel. This constitutes a form of state-created danger, since government action (an invalid pardon) places the public at increased risk.
27. Loss of a Lawful President’s Judgment: The Constitution grants the pardon power to a mentally competent President. Plaintiffs assert a constitutional right—under the Due Process Clause and general separation-of-powers principles—to decisions by an official who meets the minimum standard of comprehension.
28. Rule of Law & Accountability: Citizens have a cognizable interest in ensuring the President exercises the duties of office personally and with actual capacity. By allegedly signing pardons without understanding them, the former President undermines the constitutional framework.
29. Traceability: Plaintiffs’ injuries flow from the alleged incompetent acts and omissions of the President and his staff. If not for the President’s failing capacity (and the staff’s allowance of this situation), a violent offender would remain incarcerated, and the threat or harm to Plaintiffs would be lessened.
30. Redressability: A declaratory judgment voiding the pardons and an injunction requiring a lawful re-evaluation of each suspect clemency measure would provide meaningful relief, preventing dangerous individuals from unlawfully remaining at large.
31. Possible Statutory Basis for Standing:
5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706 (Administrative Procedure Act): Although the President’s pardon power is not typically governed by the APA, certain implementing or recordkeeping processes within the DOJ might be. Plaintiffs might seek judicial review of the procedural irregularities enabling incompetent pardons.
28 U.S.C. § 1361 (Mandamus): In the alternative, Plaintiffs could seek a writ of mandamus to compel subordinate officials in the DOJ to refuse enforcement of pardons they know to be invalid due to presidential incapacity.
VI. CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT ONE: DECLARATORY RELIEF (28 U.S.C. § 2201)
32. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.
33. There is an actual controversy as to whether President Biden possessed the mental awareness and capacity to validly issue (a) the LNG export pause; (b) certain January 6–related pardons; and (c) the controversial pardons including the convicted double murderer from Connecticut.
34. Plaintiffs ask this Court to declare that:
35. President Biden was (and is) cognitively unable to form the necessary intent to grant valid pardons.
36. As a result, any pardons or reprieves he issued without requisite capacity are null and void.
37. Defendants violated their duty under the Constitution (including the 25th Amendment’s intent) by failing to address or disclose the President’s lack of capacity, thereby placing public safety in jeopardy.
COUNT TWO: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Fed. R. Civ. P. 65)
38. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.
39. Plaintiffs face irreparable harm through the release of dangerous offenders who were not intended to receive pardons. Monetary damages cannot compensate for life-threatening risks or intangible infringements on the rule of law.
40. Plaintiffs request an injunction:
41. Prohibiting the continued recognition or enforcement of such pardons until a competent authority (or a properly functioning President) re-examines them.
42. Mandating that the DOJ, having not lawfully “executed” these late or incompetently granted pardons, suspend their effect pending judicial review.
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court:
1. Assume jurisdiction over this action;
2. Declare that former President Biden did not knowingly sign the challenged pardons, rendering them constitutionally invalid;
3. Declare that the release of such individuals under incompetent pardons poses a “state-created danger” that violates Plaintiffs’ fundamental due process rights;
4. Enjoin Defendants from executing or honoring any pardons found to be issued without the President’s cognizant intent;
5. Order Defendants or any new administration to adopt procedures immediately addressing presidential incapacity if credible evidence reveals ongoing cognitive failure in the exercise of the pardon power;
6. Award Plaintiffs costs and attorneys’ fees where authorized by law; and
7. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
VIII. JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Dated: ________________
Respectfully submitted,
[Attorney Name], Esq.
[Law Firm Name]
[Address]
[City, State, Zip]
[Phone, Email]
Counsel for WLBJ and All Similarly Situated