Two federal death row inmates, Shannon Agofsky and Len Davis, are fighting President Biden's clemency decisions, claiming they never sought commutations and fearing it could harm their ongoing appeals.

The clemency actions, which marked a historic moment with 37 federal inmates receiving commutation, have drawn resistance from Agofsky and Davis, who argue that accepting such mercy without their consent undermines their legal strategy and positions in ongoing appeals. Both inmates, who maintain their innocence and are pursuing appeals, assert that the clemency could jeopardize their cases by removing the heightened scrutiny typically employed in death penalty reviews.

Agofsky and Davis have taken their fight to the courts, filing emergency motions to block the changes to their death sentences. They contend that the clemency granted under Biden's administration was unrequested, and both have expressed strong disapproval of the idea that their lives could be altered without their agreement. Davis specifically, who was sentenced for orchestrating a murder while serving as a police officer, stated that he had never sought clemency, echoing Agofsky's sentiment that such decisions were made without their desire or input.

The legal landscape surrounding presidential clemency is complex and, historically, presidents have had the authority to commute sentences even without the convict's consent. This precedence raises questions about the viability of Agofsky and Davis's legal arguments against the clemency actions. Agofsky contends that the act of commuting his sentence would place him at a disadvantage in the ongoing appeal process. His case revolves around the conviction for the murder of a fellow inmate, a crime he insists he did not commit. His family, particularly his wife Laura, echoes this sentiment, passionately arguing that her husband should not be branded as a cold-blooded killer. She urges that the case against him should be revisited with fresh eyes.

Davis also claims his innocence and has raised issues regarding jurisdictional matters associated with his case. Both men believe that the clemency actions may inadvertently lessen the judicial scrutiny necessary for their appeals, which could ultimately affect their chances of exoneration. They fear a loss of momentum will occur, as the clemency could be misconstrued as an admission of guilt, undermining their appeals and their quest to clear their names.

President Biden's sweeping clemency initiative was noted as the largest single-day of clemency actions in modern history, but it still excluded notable inmates such as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Robert Bowers, and Dylann Roof. The clemency granted to 37 inmates raises questions about the criteria applied in these cases and how justice is measured. For Agofsky and Davis, the decision to include them, despite their objections, has compounded the stress and complexity of their legal battles.

The clemency grant for Shannon Agofsky and Len Davis raises important questions about their individual cases. Both inmates have publicly opposed the clemency, arguing it removes the heightened scrutiny that death penalty appeals receive. Agofsky contends that the commutation puts him at a legal disadvantage as he appeals his case, while both inmates claim they never requested commutation. As discussions within various state legislatures continue regarding the future of the death penalty, the unique circumstances of these inmates may come under heightened examination.

Moving forward, both Agofsky and Davis remain adamant in their position, having filed emergency motions in federal court to block the change to their death sentences. They argue that the commutation puts them at a legal disadvantage as they appeal their cases. As their cases progress through the courts, the outcomes may have significant repercussions not just for them, but for the broader landscape of federal death penalty practices.