Gotcha.
Okay, first the topic:
Or more clearly, "does accepting a pardon means acceptance of guilt?"
Right now there's no Supreme Court Case that says a) one way or another, and is b) binding.
In one SCOTUS case's opinion (that's what the judges write to say what the law is), they said "Accepting a pardon means accepting guilt",
BUT that was in "dicta", short for
Obiter Dictum. Dicta is legalese for something a judge puts in their opinion that isn't the main point of the case, and also isn't binding precedent, but may be a useful argument.
So a lower court can come to a different conclusion when some SCOTUS said was in dicta, but not when what they said was NOT in dicta. The stuff not in dicta (the vast majority of what is written usually) is binding, and lower courts are bound by that case and aren't allowed to disagree with it.
Because the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (think 1.5 steps below SCOTUS) wasn't bound by the above decision, because it was Dicta, The 10th Circuit instead found that accepting a pardon wasn't an admission of guilt, the opposite of what SCOTUS thought in 1915.
tl;dr: no body knows if accepting a pardon means admitting guilt.