A presidential pardon can erase federal criminal exposure, but it does not automatically reach alleged violations of state law. That distinction is driving a multistate push for evidence related to Anthony Fauci’s role in the COVID-19 response.
Republican state attorneys general are investigating Anthony Fauci over his actions during the COVID-19 pandemic response and say Joe Biden’s pardon, which covered federal offenses, does not necessarily prevent state authorities from pursuing their own action. The central question is whether states can pursue a legally valid case despite the pardon.
Seventeen Republican attorneys general have asked congressional leaders to share evidence that could support state-level investigations. Their move does not amount to charges against Fauci, and it does not establish wrongdoing. It does put a constitutional limit on presidential clemency at the center of a continuing political and legal fight over the pandemic.
Seventeen states join the effort
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall announced the multistate effort on February 11, 2025. According to his office, the coalition sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune seeking material from congressional work on the federal pandemic response.
The letter was signed by attorneys general from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.
The group says it wants to assess potential violations of state law connected to decisions, statements and policies during the COVID-19 emergency. Its request focuses in part on findings and records associated with the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.
What the attorneys general allege
In its public statement, the Alabama attorney general’s office cited allegations involving public descriptions of COVID-19’s origins, National Institutes of Health funding connected to gain-of-function research in Wuhan, and the handling of debate over pandemic policy and vaccine risks.
Those are the coalition’s assertions, not findings of a court. A state investigation would have to identify a particular state statute, show that the law applied to the conduct at issue and develop admissible evidence supporting each element of a potential violation.
That hurdle matters. Broad dissatisfaction with federal pandemic policy, or disagreement with Fauci’s public-health judgments, is not by itself a criminal case under state law. The coalition has not publicly identified a specific charge, state statute or evidence sufficient to support one.
The limit of a presidential pardon
The Constitution gives presidents power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in impeachment cases. In practical terms, that means a president may pardon federal crimes but cannot pardon violations of state criminal law.
Biden’s pardon for Fauci therefore cannot, on its own, bar every state inquiry. If a state believed it had jurisdiction over a distinct state-law offense, that state could investigate. Whether it could bring charges would depend on facts far more specific than the existence of the pardon.
This federal-state divide is well established, but it is not a shortcut around federal clemency. States cannot simply relabel alleged federal conduct as a state offense. Prosecutors would need a legitimate state-law theory and a concrete connection between the alleged conduct and their state.
Why jurisdiction is the hard part
Fauci’s most visible pandemic work was federal. He led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for decades and served as a leading federal public-health adviser during the Trump and Biden administrations. That federal role may make a state case especially complicated.
State prosecutors generally need to show that relevant conduct occurred within the state, was directed into the state in a way covered by its laws, or caused a legally recognizable state-based harm. They also must account for questions about federal authority, immunity defenses, statutes of limitations and the availability of witnesses and records.
There is also a significant difference between conducting an investigation and securing a conviction. Attorneys general can seek documents, coordinate with other offices and ask Congress for information. A criminal prosecution, however, must survive judicial review and meet the high burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Competing views on accountability
Supporters of the coalition argue that pandemic-era decisions deserve more scrutiny and that a broad federal pardon should not foreclose accountability if state laws were violated. Marshall said the public deserves transparency about decisions that affected everyday life during the emergency.
Critics are likely to view state-level pursuits as an attempt to extend a politically charged federal debate into state criminal systems without a clearly defined alleged offense. They may also argue that policy disputes and contested scientific decisions should be evaluated through oversight, public records and elections rather than speculative criminal theories.
Fauci has long defended his pandemic work and has rejected accusations that he covered up COVID-19’s origins or misled the public. The public statement from the attorneys general does not include a response from him, nor does it describe an active criminal case in any of the 17 states.
What comes next remains uncertain
The immediate next step sought by the coalition is information from Congress. The attorneys general want evidence they believe could reveal conduct that falls under state jurisdiction.
Several major questions remain unanswered: which state laws the group believes may apply, what factual conduct could support a case, whether any state has opened a formal investigation, and whether the requested congressional material would be usable in court.
For now, the practical takeaway is narrower than the rhetoric surrounding the effort. Biden’s pardon can protect Fauci from federal prosecution for covered conduct, but it cannot erase state criminal law. Still, a state case would require much more than that constitutional distinction: it would need a specific, legally sustainable allegation backed by evidence.
Leave a Reply