Pardon or Perk? The Chrisley Case and Trump’s Clemency Power

By Chrisley Knows Prison, True Crime Analyst

In a dramatic turn worthy of reality television, Todd and Julie Chrisley – the husband-and-wife duo from Chrisley Knows Best – walked out of federal prison in late May 2025. They didn’t escape; they were freed by a presidential pardon. Former President Donald Trump, himself a reality TV veteran, signed pardons that wiped away the Chrisleys’ convictions for financial crimes. The news sparked celebration from the Chrisley family and outrage from critics who saw political favoritism at play. What exactly were the Chrisleys convicted of, and what does a presidential pardon really do (and not do)? Let’s unpack the story of the Chrisleys’ crimes, Trump’s constitutional pardon power, and how this clemency affects the couple’s legal status and future.

The Chrisleys’ Crimes and Convictions

Todd and Julie Chrisley’s legal troubles began long before the pardon phone call from Trump. In June 2022, after a nearly three-week trial, a federal jury in Atlanta convicted the Chrisleys on a slew of financial fraud and tax evasion charges. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Chrisleys conspired to defraud community banks out of more than $30 million by submitting false loan documents, then spent the money on “luxury cars, designer clothes, real estate, and travel”. When the scheme collapsed, Todd Chrisley declared bankruptcy, walking away from over $20 million in loans that he never repaid.

But the fraud didn’t stop there. Even as their reality TV fame and income grew, the Chrisleys hid money from the IRS. Prosecutors said the couple used a loan-out company to funnel their TV earnings and put accounts in Julie’s name to dodge half a million dollars in back taxes owed by Todd. When the IRS started asking questions, they allegedly transferred the account to Todd’s mother to further conceal income. They also failed to file or pay taxes for multiple years. To cap it off, Julie was convicted of wire fraud and obstruction of justice for submitting a fake document to investigators during the grand jury probe. (In all, the jury found them guilty of charges including bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), conspiracy to defraud the United States (often charged under 18 U.S.C. § 371), and willful tax evasion (26 U.S.C. § 7201).)

Sentencing was harsh. In November 2022, U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross sentenced Todd Chrisley to 12 years in federal prison and Julie to 7 years, plus 16 months of combined probation (three years supervised release each). The couple was also ordered to pay hefty restitution – reportedly around $17.8 million – to their fraud victims. They reported to prison on January 17, 2023, beginning what was supposed to be a long incarceration (Todd’s original release was projected in 2032, and Julie’s in 2028). An appeals court upheld their convictions in 2024, leaving the Chrisleys with dwindling legal options – until Trump stepped in.

Trump’s Pardon: The Constitutional Power of Clemency

On May 28, 2025, President Trump gave the Chrisley family the news of a lifetime: a full presidential pardon was on its way. Under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the president has the exclusive authority to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment”. In plain terms, this means the president can forgive federal crimes and nullify or reduce the penalties for those crimes. The pardon power is broad and virtually unchecked – it can be exercised at any point after an offense is committed (even before charges or after conviction) and cannot be overridden by Congress or the courts. It’s essentially the ultimate trump card (no pun intended) in the federal criminal justice system, intended as a mechanism of mercy.

President Trump’s use of this power for the Chrisleys is notable. The couple’s daughter Savannah Chrisley had publicly lobbied for their pardon, appealing through official channels – and even speaking at the Republican National Convention in 2024 – claiming her parents were unfairly prosecuted for being high-profile conservatives. Trump, who had met Savannah and was sympathetic to their case, decided to act. In a recorded phone call from the Oval Office, Trump told Savannah and her brother Chase, “Your parents are going to be free and clean, and I hope we can do it by tomorrow”. The very next day, he signed the pardon documents. Within hours, Todd was released from FPC Pensacola in Florida and Julie walked out of FMC Lexington in Kentucky, into the arms of rejoicing family. What looked like years of imprisonment ahead suddenly evaporated.

It’s important to understand that a presidential pardon does not mean the crime never happened – it is a forgiveness of the offense, not a judicial acquittal. Yet Trump’s pardon erased the government’s punishment: the Chrisleys’ prison sentences are over, and they will not have to serve the remaining years behind bars. In the words of their attorney Alex Little, the pardon “ends the case entirely” – essentially wiping the slate “clean” for Todd and Julie, allowing them to “pick up their lives… and go forward”. As we’ll see, Little’s “wipe clean” description is a bit of an oversimplification from a legal standpoint, but there’s no doubt the pardon is a powerful lifeline for the Chrisleys.

Does a Pardon Wipe the Record Clean?

One big question is whether the Chrisleys’ pardon wipes their record clean or expunges their convictions. Legally, a pardon does not erase or seal the conviction record in the way an expungement might. The historical view of pardons has some nuance. In the 19th century, the Supreme Court at times described a full pardon as if it “blots out of existence” the conviction and guilt, making the person “as innocent as if he had never committed the offense”. This was the language of Ex parte Garland (1866), which emphasized that a pardon restores a person’s civil rights and removes penalties. However, later courts clarified that a pardon, while it forgives the crime, doesn’t pretend the crime never occurred.

In fact, the Supreme Court famously stated in Burdick v. United States that a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance [of a pardon] is a confession of it.”. In other words, a pardon is offered to someone who is guilty of an offense, and by accepting the pardon, the Chrisleys legally acknowledge that guilt – they are not suddenly “innocent” in the historical or moral sense. As one attorney put it bluntly this week, “post-conviction pardons are given to the guilty, which I think speaks for itself”. Another modern Supreme Court decision explained that granting a pardon “is in no sense an overturning of a judgment of conviction… it is an executive action that mitigates or sets aside the punishment for a crime.” The conviction still stands on the record, but the punitive consequences are lifted.

To illustrate, the official criminal record for Todd and Julie will still note their 2022 convictions for fraud and tax evasion – those court judgments aren’t vacated by the stroke of a president’s pen. What the record will also show is that each was granted a full pardon by the President. The historical fact of their guilt and conviction remains in place, “simply add[ed] to the record that a pardon has been granted”. A useful analogy: a pardon is like a governor or president saying, “You’re free to go and won’t be punished further,” but it’s not the same as a court declaring you innocent or nullifying the jury’s verdict.

In practical terms, this means the Chrisleys can truthfully say they have been pardoned, but they cannot honestly claim they were never convicted. If a future employer or a background check looks into their history, the convictions will appear – with an annotation of the pardon. Federal pardons do not expunge records (there is no federal expungement for most crimes). Thus, while the Chrisleys’ debt to society is considered paid by virtue of the pardon, their saga will always be part of the public record and their biographies.

Life After Clemency: What the Pardon Means for the Chrisleys

The immediate effect of Trump’s pardon was straightforward: Todd and Julie Chrisley walked free. The pardon nullified their prison sentences, so they were released years early, and it also excuses any remaining court-imposed penalties. For example, any unpaid fines or restitution ordered by the court can no longer be enforced by the government. In the Chrisleys’ case, that’s significant – they had been ordered to pay roughly $17 to $18 million in restitution to victims. A presidential pardon, being an unconditional forgiveness of the offense, effectively eliminates any remaining restitution debt to the United States as well. (Notably, when Trump recently pardoned another businessman convicted of tax fraud, it wiped out over $4 million in restitution he still owed. The Chrisleys similarly are now off the hook for the balance of what they owed, a point not lost on those outraged by their clemency.) That said, if private creditors or banks defrauded by the Chrisleys had independent civil judgments, those wouldn’t be erased by a criminal pardon – but any government-collected restitution or forfeiture is forgiven.

Beyond freedom from prison and financial penalties, a full presidential pardon can restore many of the civil rights that felons lose. Under federal law, convicted felons are barred from certain rights and opportunities – for instance, they cannot possess firearms (per 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) and often lose the right to vote or serve on juries under state laws. A pardon “restores civil rights” lost due to the conviction. Practically, the Chrisleys should regain the right to vote, to hold public office, and to serve on a jury, as those are considered civic rights lost upon felony conviction in many jurisdictions. Indeed, one reason people seek pardons is to lift these civic disabilities and end the stigma of being a felon. Even the right to own a firearm can be restored by a full pardon – for example, Trump reportedly wanted to pardon actor Mel Gibson for a domestic violence conviction specifically so Gibson could regain his Second Amendment rights. The Chrisleys, having been pardoned for financial felonies, would similarly no longer be federally prohibited from firearms ownership. Any professional licenses or bonds that were lost due to their convictions might also be regained, though some consequences (like private reputational damage or credit score issues) a pardon cannot magically fix.

Importantly, a presidential pardon is final and cannot be undone. The Constitution provides no mechanism for courts or future presidents to reverse a valid pardon. Trump’s clemency order for the Chrisleys is the last word on their federal case – there is no longer a sentence to serve, and no further appeals or oversight on that decision. The Chrisleys’ convictions are considered “absolved” in the eyes of federal law. They will not be placed on supervised release or probation, since those too are part of the punishment that is waived. In short, the pardon gave Todd and Julie Chrisley their lives back. They went from being federal inmates with long futures behind bars to free citizens planning belated birthday parties and family gatherings, as their daughter described with joy.

It’s worth noting that the pardon only covers federal offenses – and the Chrisleys’ crimes (bank fraud, tax evasion) were indeed federal. If, hypothetically, they had state charges or future state issues, Trump’s pardon would not protect them from state prosecution. But in this case, their legal slate is clean as far as federal law is concerned.

Legal and Public Reactions to the Chrisley Pardon

The highly publicized pardon of the Chrisleys has fueled discussion about the presidential pardon power – its proper use and its potential for abuse. Legal scholars and commentators point out that the pardon power, while broad, can be controversial when used on politically connected figures. The Constitution gives presidents absolute discretion in granting clemency, but with that comes “the risk of abuse”. Trump’s recent wave of pardons and commutations (from the Chrisleys to a bribery-convicted sheriff and even a Chicago gang leader) suggests a pattern: as one analyst put it, “No MAGA left behind.”Trump has been unafraid to wield clemency for friends, supporters, and celebrities. In 2021, a pair of legal scholars reviewing Trump’s first-term pardons observed that he bypassed the usual Department of Justice review process more than any president in history – relying on his own instincts or appeals from insiders rather than the neutral vetting by the Office of the Pardon Attorney. The Chrisley pardons, coming after Savannah Chrisley’s RNC speech and her appearances on programs hosted by Trump allies, fit this trend of personalized pardons.

Unsurprisingly, critics cried foul. To some, freeing the Chrisleys – who were undeniably convicted of serious fraud – purely because of their fame and loyalty to Trump “smacks of…fealty gets favors”. Financial crimes prosecutors and IRS officials expressed dismay that high-profile fraudsters were let off the hook even as the government claims to be cracking down on financial fraud. “In Trump’s America, crimes are celebrated and prison sentences are cut short,” one commentator quipped bitterly on social media. Atlanta attorney Kevin Ward, who represented some of the banks the Chrisleys defrauded, said pardoning convicted fraudsters while the administration ostensibly fights fraud invites obvious criticism. And he pointed to the fundamental fact that pardons don’t equal innocence: “The Chrisleys are guilty – a post-conviction pardon is given to the guilty, by definition,” Ward noted, highlighting that mercy was granted despite the jury’s verdict.

On the other hand, the Chrisleys’ supporters argue that this pardon is an example of clemency correcting an overzealous prosecution. The Chrisleys have always maintained their innocence, and their attorney insists they were “targeted because of their conservative values and high profile,” calling the pardon an act that “corrects a deep injustice”. In the Chrisleys’ view, Trump simply delivered justice where the legal system failed them. Such arguments are common in high-profile pardon cases – one person’s undue leniency is another person’s remedy for a wrongful or excessive punishment. Clemency by nature is a case-by-case, personalized judgment by the President, and President Trump clearly believed the Chrisleys deserved a “second chance”.

From a neutral legal perspective, what’s happened is that the Chrisleys remain convicted felons, but forgiven ones. They are legally free and their rights are restored, yet the story of their fraud conviction and pardon will always follow them. The presidential pardon power, anchored in the Constitution, has always had this dual character: it is a tool of mercy and a potential tool of patronage. The Chrisley case exemplifies both. As a former federal pardon attorney, Margaret Love, once wrote, the pardon power is an “oft-misunderstood” element of executive authority – it can “mitigate or set aside punishment” but not rewrite history.

In the end, Todd and Julie Chrisley are out of prison and planning to “pick up their lives”. They’ve even hinted at returning to reality TV, perhaps to document their journey post-pardon. Their saga provides a real-world lesson in high-stakes law: how a fraud scheme led to steep sentences, and how the stroke of a presidential pen upended it all. Love it or hate it, Trump’s pardon of the Chrisleys underscores the remarkable power of clemency in the American justice system – a power that can at once affirm guilt and deliver freedom.

Sources:

• U.S. Department of Justice, Press Release (Nov. 21, 2022) – Details of the Chrisleys’ conviction on bank fraud, wire fraud, tax evasion, and obstruction charges, and their 12-year and 7-year sentences.
• AP News – “Trump pardons Julie and Todd Chrisley…” (May 28, 2025), news report on the pardon and release of the Chrisleys from prison.
• AP News – “What to know about reality TV stars Julie and Todd Chrisley, who were pardoned by Trump” (May 2025), background on the Chrisleys’ case and Savannah’s advocacy.
• The Independent – “Why did Trump pardon Todd and Julie Chrisley and what happens next?” (May 29, 2025), includes the crimes (defrauding banks of $30 million, tax evasion) and original sentences ($12M & $7M, plus $17.8M restitution), as well as quotes from critics on the pardon.
• WSB-TV Atlanta – “Attorney for creditors… says presidential pardon ‘smacks’…” (May 28, 2025), quotes from Kevin Ward (creditors’ attorney) on the pardon implying guilt and favoritism, and statement from the Chrisleys’ lawyer praising Trump.
• Fox News Digital – “Chrisleys’ attorney calls Trump pardon ‘incredibly powerful’…” (May 30, 2025), interview with Alex Little (Chrisleys’ attorney) describing the pardon’s effect as wiping the case clean and Trump’s call telling the children their parents will be “free and clean”.
• The Marshall Project – “‘Freedom for Captives!’ Trump Puts Clemency Machine Into Overdrive…” (June 2025), context on Trump’s surge of pardons, noting that the Chrisleys’ $17 million restitution is now moot and discussing the politicization of pardons (quote “No MAGA left behind”).
• U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2 – Presidential pardon power clause; see also U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1.
• Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915) – Supreme Court case stating a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.”.
• Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866) – Supreme Court case describing a pardon’s broad effect in absolving punishment and restoring rights (though later cases limited the “innocence” notion).
• Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993) – Supreme Court case reiterating that a pardon doesn’t overturn a conviction, but rather “sets aside punishment” for the crime.
• Delaware Board of Pardons, Pardon FAQs – Explanation that a pardon “does not remove the record of conviction… it simply adds to the record that a pardon has been granted,” while restoring civil rights and ending further punishment.
• Elizabeth Franklin-Best, P.C., “Presidential Pardons: Definition, Meaning & Applying” – Legal resource noting that a pardon is official forgiveness that “does not erase the conviction or mean the individual is innocent” but can restore rights and remove legal disabilities.