a pardon in this case, I did some research about criminal matters versus civil and here is what I found from the Brookings website: "Settled law: The scope of the presidential pardon
With President Trump’s history of controversial pardon decisions and with expectations that numbers of additional pardons will issue before his term ends, the presidential power to pardon is attracting unprecedented attention. The exact dimensions of this power are for the Supreme Court to determine, and Court majorities have in recent years often been unshackled by precedent in resolving politically fraught issues. However, certain aspects of the presidential pardoning power are so well-established that it is unlikely that any Court, conservative or liberal, will revisit them. For starters the power is extremely broad; it is vested by the Constitution in the president, and there is little that Congress can do to
Settled law: Limitations of the presidential pardon
Although the president’s power is broad, it is not without accepted limitations. Perhaps the most important is that the president can only pardon federal offenses; he cannot interfere with state prosecutions. Also, the pardoning power only extends to criminal offenses; it does not preclude civil actions. Thus, in one case, despite a strong separation of powers argument to the contrary, the Supreme Court held that the president could pardon a person jailed for criminal contempt of court. It noted, however, that had the charges been for civil contempt, an appeal to the president’s pardoning power would have been unavailing."
So it looks like they might try and then drag it into the appeals process but eventually the matter seems clear. Unless Cash and Carry Clarence feels otherwise.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/presidential-pardons-settled-law-unsettled-issues-and-a-downside-for-trump/#:~:text=Perhaps%20the%20most%20important%20is%20that%20the%20president,criminal%20offenses%3B%20it%20does%20not%20preclude%20civil%20actions.
= new reply since forum marked as read