Alan Dershowitz has raised significant legal concerns about President Joe Biden’s use of an autopen to sign documents, arguing there is a “very substantial argument” that the practice may be unlawful. The Harvard Law professor emeritus emphasized that the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes often require a president’s for certain official actions, particularly pardons and executive orders. Dershowitz contends that using an autopen—a mechanical device replicating a signature—could undermine the legal validity of these documents, as the intent and personal approval implied by a hand-signed document may not be satisfied by automated methods.
This issue gained attention after former President Donald Trump alleged that Biden’s autopen use invalidated certain actions. Dershowitz acknowledged that while past presidents, including Trump, have utilized autopens for routine matters, the legal threshold for is different. He pointed out that the Constitution’s explicit requirements for presidential duties, such as the pardon power under Article II, likely demand direct, tangible authorization to withstand judicial scrutiny.
Dershowitz’s analysis highlights a broader debate about executive authority and technological convenience. He cautioned that reliance on autopens for consequential decisions risks eroding constitutional safeguards designed to ensure accountability. His stance aligns with his long-standing emphasis on strict adherence to legal text, even as he recognizes the practical challenges modern administrations face in managing high volumes of paperwork.
The legal scholar’s comments reflect his consistent approach of prioritizing constitutional principles over partisan politics, a position he maintained during his involvement in both Democratic and Republican presidential legal defenses. His critique underscores unresolved tensions between historical governance norms and evolving administrative practices.
