When a loved one is facing serious criminal charges, the legal system can feel like a maze. Stories in the news about presidents, pardons, and federal courts add another layer of confusion. One of the most common myths we hear is this:
“If a state criminal case gets moved to federal court, the president can pardon it.”
That belief is wrong. It can lead families to make decisions based on false hope instead of solid legal advice.
At Pacyga Law, we represent people in serious and complex criminal cases in Minnesota. One of our current clients is Greg Morgan, an ICE agent charged in Hennepin County District Court with two counts of second‑degree assault. His case gives us a clear, real‑world way to explain how “removal” to federal court works and what it does, and does not, change.
This post breaks down:
- What it means when a federal officer asks to move a state case to federal court
- How a federal judge decides whether to allow it
- What happens to the charges if the case is removed
- Why a president still cannot pardon those state crimes
If you are a potential client or a family member trying to understand your options, you deserve clear answers rooted in real law, not rumors.
The Case Example: A Federal Officer Charged in State Court
Our firm represents Greg Morgan, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent charged in Hennepin County District Court with two counts of second‑degree assault under Minnesota law.
There is a specific federal statute that applies when a federal officer or agent is prosecuted in state court for actions allegedly taken as part of their official duties. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, certain federal officers can ask (or “petition”) to have their state criminal case removed from state court into federal court.
That is what we filed in Mr. Morgan’s case: a petition asking a federal court to take jurisdiction over the existing state criminal case.
From the outside, it may look like a technical move. In reality, it raises big questions for our client and his family:
- Does this change the charges?
- Does it change who prosecutes the case?
- Does it change who can pardon it?
To answer those questions, you need to understand how removal works.
How Removal from State Court to Federal Court Actually Works
Filing a petition for removal is not a magic switch. It is not automatic, and it does not guarantee the case will move.
Here is the basic process in plain English:
1. The defense files a petition for removal
Defense counsel files a written petition with the federal court explaining:
- That the defendant is a qualifying federal officer or agent
- That the charges relate to actions taken “under color” of federal office
- That there is a “colorable federal defense” such as Supremacy Clause immunity
A colorable defense does not mean the defense is guaranteed to win. It means there is a legitimate, non‑frivolous federal legal argument that could apply, based on the facts alleged.
2. The federal judge reviews the petition
The federal judge does not automatically accept the case. The judge first reads the petition and decides whether what is written meets the legal standard to justify further proceedings.
At this stage, there are two broad options:
- If the petition is insufficient
If the judge concludes the petition does not raise a real federal defense or otherwise does not meet statutory standards, the judge can deny removal outright.- Result: The case stays in state court and proceeds there as if the petition had never been filed.
- If the petition is sufficient on its face
If the judge finds that the petition raises a legitimate federal defense and meets other legal requirements, the judge can order an evidentiary hearing.- Result: State court proceedings are typically paused while the federal court decides whether to keep the case.
3. Evidentiary hearing and possible motions
If the federal judge grants an evidentiary hearing:
- The court can hear testimony and review evidence related to issues like whether the officer was acting within the scope of federal duties and whether a federal defense such as Supremacy Clause immunity applies.
- The defense may also file a motion to dismiss, arguing that because of federal immunity, the state charges cannot lawfully proceed.
If the federal judge:
- Grants dismissal on a federal defense, the case can end at that point.
- Denies dismissal, the case can move forward in federal court. In that situation, the case can eventually go to trial in federal court, but something very important does not change.
What Does Not Change: The Charges Stay State Crimes
This is the key point where the myth grows legs.
Even if a federal court grants the petition and removes the case out of state court and into federal court, several things remain true:
- The charges are still state crimes, based on state statutes.
- The prosecutor remains the state prosecutor (for example the Hennepin County Attorney), not a United States Attorney.
- The case is still fundamentally a state criminal prosecution, simply being heard in a federal courtroom.
Removal is about which court hears the case, not what kind of crime is being prosecuted.
Changing the courtroom does not change the legal nature of the offense.
This distinction is crucial when people start talking about pardons.
The Myth: “If It’s in Federal Court, the President Can Pardon It”
This is the myth we want to clearly and firmly dispel:
“If a federal officer gets a state case removed to federal court, the president can pardon them because it is now a ‘federal case.’”
That is legally incorrect.
Under the United States Constitution, the president’s pardon power is limited:
- The president can grant pardons and reprieves for federal offenses.
- The president cannot pardon state crimes, even if those crimes are being handled in federal court after removal.
The Supreme Court has been clear on this. In Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866) and later cases, the Court confirmed that the Article II pardon power extends only to offenses “against the United States,” meaning violations of federal law.
By contrast:
- State crimes can only be pardoned or commuted by state authorities. In Minnesota, that power lies with the Minnesota Board of Pardons, which includes the governor, the state attorney general, and the chief justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court.
So even if:
- A federal officer is charged with a Minnesota crime,
- Petitions for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442,
- And successfully has the case moved to federal court,
the underlying charges remain state crimes under Minnesota law.
Because of that, a president has no constitutional power to pardon those offenses, regardless of where the case is being tried.
Who Can “Pardon” a State Crime?
For state crimes:
- Only state mechanisms such as pardons or commutations under state law can forgive or reduce a conviction.
- In Minnesota, that means going through the Minnesota Board of Pardons, not the White House.
So in a case like Mr. Morgan’s, even if the petition for removal is granted and the case proceeds in federal court:
- The president cannot pardon the case, because the charges are still Minnesota state offenses.
- Any post‑conviction “forgiveness” would have to come from Minnesota authorities, not federal ones.
Removal changes venue and forum, not who holds constitutional power over the offense.
Why This Matters for Families and Defendants
Rumors about presidential pardons and federal courts do more than confuse people. They can:
- Give defendants and families a false sense of security
- Distract from the real legal defenses that must be built
- Encourage risky decisions based on politics instead of law
At Pacyga Law, our responsibility is to ground clients and their families in reality, not wishful thinking. When someone is charged with a serious state crime, especially a law enforcement officer or public official, we focus on:
- The actual defenses available under state law and federal law
- The procedural tools that can protect constitutional rights
- The realistic paths to dismissal, acquittal, or damage control
We use tools like removal petitions, evidentiary hearings, and motions to dismiss when they are legally warranted and truly in the client’s best interest. But we refuse to sell the idea that a president’s pardon power will rescue someone from a state prosecution just because a case crosses the threshold into a federal courthouse.
Your life and your future deserve better than that.
If You or a Loved One Faces Serious State Charges
If you or a family member is facing serious or complex criminal charges in Minnesota, especially involving alleged conduct while serving in an official or federal role, you need:
- A team that understands both state and federal procedure
- Lawyers who will use advanced legal tools like removal petitions and federal defenses when they actually apply
- Straight answers about what is possible, what is not, and where the real hope lies
Pacyga Law represents people in some of the most difficult and high‑stakes criminal cases in the Twin Cities and across Minnesota. We work to protect careers, reputations, and futures with every legal mechanism the law allows, and we tell the truth about what those mechanisms can and cannot do.
If you are trying to make sense of charges against you or someone you love, do not rely on myths or headlines. Talk to a team that lives in this reality every day.