Alabama’s Tuberville and Florida’s attorney general say Fauci pardon does not bar state suits linked to COVID response

Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville and Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody said in separate statements that President Donald Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, pardon of Anthony Fauci would not prevent state efforts to pursue legal claims tied to Fauci’s COVID-19 role, according to a Fox News Politics report published Aug. 1, 2026.

Tuberville, who is aligned with state-level accountability efforts, said he would press forward with legal action against Fauci, characterizing the pardon as insufficient to cover what he described as crimes at the state level connected to Fauci’s COVID-era activities. The report said Tuberville vowed to continue raising the matter in court.

Moody, Florida’s top legal officer, similarly argued that a presidential pardon does not override state authority over alleged state crimes. The report said she rejected the idea that the pardon bars state litigation or other enforcement actions related to Fauci’s conduct during the COVID-19 period.

The dispute, as described in the report, centers on the scope of presidential pardons and how they interact with prosecutions or enforcement brought under state law. Presidential pardons generally apply to offenses against the United States, while states can pursue matters under their own criminal statutes, creating a potential legal question over whether the conduct at issue properly falls within federal coverage or state jurisdiction.

Tuberville’s and Moody’s statements came after Biden issued a pardon to Fauci, according to the report. Both officials framed their position as an effort to preserve state-law pathways to accountability rather than as a disagreement about Fauci’s federal pardon status.

The practical impact of the officials’ position depends on what specific allegations and causes of action are asserted in court, including what state statutes are cited and whether any proceedings are limited by doctrines such as jurisdiction, evidentiary scope, or the effect of a federal pardon on related state charges. The report indicates the officials intend to keep pressing their case despite the pardon.

If state court filings proceed, the cases could test how courts interpret the relationship between federal pardons and state criminal exposure, and whether a pardon can be invoked to dismiss or narrow state claims. Additional procedural steps, including motions to dismiss and hearings on jurisdiction and legal scope, would likely shape how quickly the matters move forward.

For now, the record provided for this report is focused on the officials’ public positions that the pardon does not end state-level efforts, rather than on new charges or final rulings in court. Any next updates would depend on subsequent court filings, orders, or appellate activity arising from those statements.