:Federal pardons in the United States

The pardon power of the president is based on Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides:

{{blockquote|The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment.}}

The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the provision to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites and amnesties.{{cite journal |first=P. S. Jr. |last=Ruckman |year=1997 |title=Executive Clemency in the United States: Origins, Development, and Analysis (1900–1993) |volume=27 |journal=Presidential Studies Quarterly |issue=2 |pages=251–271 |jstor=27551729 }}

• A pardon is an executive order granting clemency for a conviction. It may be granted "at any time" after the commission of the crime.{{Cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/71/333#writing-USSC_CR_0071_0333_ZO |title=Ex Parte Garland|website=LII / Legal Information Institute|language=en|access-date=2017-02-06|quote="The power thus conferred is unlimited, with the exception stated. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency or after conviction and judgment."}} As per Justice Department regulations, convicted persons may only apply five or more years after their sentence has been completed. However, the president's power to pardon is not restricted by any temporal constraints except that the crime must have been committed. A pardon is an expression of the president's forgiveness and ordinarily is granted in recognition of the applicant's acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or completion of sentence. It does not signify innocence. Its practical effect is the restoration of civil rights and reversal or elimination of statutory disabilities{{Clarify|reason=Why would a pardon …restore… …dis…abilities?|date=August 2023}} of, e.g., firearm rights, occupational licensing, etc., associated with or caused or occasioned by a past criminal conviction. In rarer cases, such as the pardon of Richard Nixon, a pardon can also halt criminal proceedings or investigations and prevent an indictment, though this has not been tested in court.
• A reprieve is a temporary postponement of a punishment (refer to pardon/related concepts).
• A commutation is the mitigation of the sentence of someone currently serving a sentence for a crime pursuant to a conviction, without cancelling the conviction itself.

The concept of governments having the authority to provide relief from criminal punishment has deep and broader historical roots, including in ancient Jewish, Greek, and Roman legal principles and practice.Dep’t of Just., The Attorney General’s Survey of Release Procedures 2–13 (1939) (discussing pardon principles under Mosaic, Greek, and Roman law). The U.S. Constitution's pardon power originated from longstanding English tradition,{{Cite web |title=Historical Background on Pardon Power {{!}} Constitution Annotated {{!}} Congress.gov {{!}} Library of Congress |url=https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-2/ALDE_00013317/#essay-11 |access-date=2024-12-12 |website=constitution.congress.gov |language=en}} which permitted the monarch to exercise the "royal prerogative of mercy" to withdraw or provide alternatives to death sentences.{{Cite web |title=Historical Background on Pardon Power {{!}} Constitution Annotated {{!}} Congress.gov {{!}} Library of Congress |url=https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-2/ALDE_00013317/ |access-date=2024-12-12 |website=constitution.congress.gov |language=en}}{{Cite web |last=Linton |first=Caroline |date=2024-12-02 |title=What is a presidential pardon, and how have Biden, Trump and other leaders used the power? - CBS News |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-a-presidential-pardon/ |access-date=2024-12-12 |website=www.cbsnews.com |language=en-US}} The first known prerogative of mercy was issued by King Ine of Wessex (688–725), and during the reign of King Henry VIII (1509–1547), it was formally declared by parliament as an exclusive right of the Crown.4 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 397 (1765) (recognizing declaration in statute during reign of King Henry VIII that the king hath the whole and sole power to pardon). By the 18th century, the power had been restricted by parliament, enabling it to address potential abuses, but retained its broad application, including in the American colonies.See, e.g., 7 Francis Newton Thorpe, American Charters, Constitutions and Organic Laws 3800–01 (1909) (granting, in Second Charter of Virginia from 1609, full and absolute Power and Authority to correct, punish, pardon, govern, and rule all subjects). The framers of the U.S. Constitution were directly influenced by the English practice.E.g., 3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1496 (1833) (noting that exception for impeachment was probably borrowed from England).

Alexander Hamilton defended the pardon power in The Federalist Papers, particularly in Federalist No. 74, where he argued that such a power should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed to ensure easy access to exceptions in favour of unfortunate guilt. {{Cite web |last=Drexler |first=Ken |title=Research Guides: Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History: Federalist Nos. 71-80 |url=https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-71-80#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493466 |access-date=2024-12-12 |website=guides.loc.gov |language=en}} Hamilton also argued that placing power solely with the President would lead to its most beneficial exercise, as a single person would be a more eligible dispenser of the mercy of the government than a body of men who might often encourage each other in an act of obduracy, and might be less sensible to the apprehension of suspicion or censure for an injudicious or affected clemency.

Given the historical precedent, the 1787 Constitutional Convention saw little debate on whether to enshrine a pardon power;Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256, 262 (1974). neither the Virginia nor New Jersey plan, which concerned the structure of the new government, addressed pardons. Rather, most discussions and disagreements centered on how and where presidential pardons would be exercised.The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 20–23 (Max Farrand ed., 1911) (Virginia Plan, in Madison’s notes); Id. at 242–45 (New Jersey Plan, in Madison’s notes). Hamilton proposed amendments to the Virginia Plan that would vest the pardon power in an Executive authority that could be exercised over all offences except Treason, with a pardon for treason requiring approval by the Senate.The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 20–23 (Max Farrand ed., 1911) (Virginia Plan, in Madison’s notes); Id. at 292 (New Jersey Plan, in Madison’s notes). The first report of the Committee of Detail proposed allowing the president to grant "reprieves and pardons", with the only exception being that a pardon would not be pleadable in bar of an impeachment,The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 185 (Max Farrand ed., 1911) which was similar to English restrictions on royal pardons.4 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 399-400 (1765)3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1496 (1833) (noting that exception for impeachment was probably borrowed from England).

Virginia delegate Edmund Randolph submitted a motion to reincorporate an exception to cases of treason, on the basis that extending pardons to such instances was too great a trust, that the President may himself be guilty, and that the Traytors may be his own instruments. 1 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 20–23 (Max Farrand ed., 1911) (Virginia Plan, in Madison’s notes); Id. at 262 (New Jersey Plan, in Madison’s notes). During the Virginia Ratifying Convention, fellow Virginia delegate George Mason likewise argued against ratification partly on the grounds that "the President ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself", which eventually establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic.{{cite news |title=The Traditional Interpretation of the Pardon Power Is Wrong |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/traditional-interpretation-pardon-power-wrong/614083/ |access-date=July 13, 2020 |website=The Atlantic}} James Wilson of Pennsylvania countered that if the President were himself involved in treasonous conduct, he could be impeached.The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 626 (Max Farrand ed., 1911) (Virginia Plan, in Madison’s notes). Responding to Randolph's motion, James Madison expressed that the Senate should be consulted for pardons that concerned treason; Roger Sherman submitted a separate proposal requiring Senate consent for all pardons, while making presidential reprieves applicable only until the subsequent Senate session. Randolph's motion was ultimately defeated by an 8–2 vote (with one divided), while Sherman's motion was defeated by a vote of 8–1.

The pardon power was first used by George Washington in 1795, when he gave amnesty to participants of the Whiskey Rebellion. Pardons were subsequently issued for a wide variety of convictions and crimes. Thomas Jefferson granted amnesty to any citizen convicted of a crime under the Alien and Sedition Acts. Abraham Lincoln used clemency during the U.S. Civil War to encourage desertions from the Confederate Army; in 1868, his successor, Andrew Johnson, pardoned Jefferson Davis, the former president of the Confederacy, which was perhaps the most controversial pardon up to that point.

Until Grover Cleveland's first term (1885–1889), pardons were handwritten by the president; after typewriters came to be used for regular White House business, pardons were prepared for the president by administrative staff, requiring only that the president sign them.{{cite web|url=http://ednet.rvc.cc.il.us/~PeterR/Papers/paper3.htm |title=Federal Executive Clemency in United States |access-date=March 19, 2011 |last=Ruckman Jr. |first=P. S. |date=November 4, 1995 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110326045557/http://ednet.rvc.cc.il.us/~PeterR/Papers/paper3.htm |archive-date=March 26, 2011 }}

All federal pardon petitions are addressed to the president, who grants or denies the request. Typically, applications for pardons are referred for review and non-binding recommendation by the Office of the Pardon Attorney, an official of the United States Department of Justice. The number of pardons and reprieves granted has varied from administration to administration. Fewer pardons have been granted since World War II.{{cite web |first=P. S. Jr. |last=Ruckman |title=Presidential Pardons by Administration, 1789–2001 |url=http://www.rvc.cc.il.us/faclink/pruckman/pardoncharts/all_files/image002.gif |work=Rock Valley College |access-date=July 22, 2017 |archive-date=March 3, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303221319/http://www.rvc.cc.il.us/faclink/pruckman/pardoncharts/all_files/image002.gif |url-status=dead }}

A federal pardon can be issued prior to the start of a legal case or inquiry, prior to any indictments being issued, for unspecified offenses, and prior to or after a conviction for a federal crime.{{cite web |first=Brian |last=Kalt |title=Can Trump Pardon Himself? |url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/19/what-would-happen-if-trump-pardoned-himself-mueller-russia-investigation/ |url-access=limited |work=Foreign Policy |date=May 19, 2017 |access-date=August 27, 2017}} President Gerald R. Ford's broad federal pardon of former president Richard M. Nixon in 1974 for "all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974" is a notable example of a fixed-period federal pardon that came prior to any indictments being issued and that covered unspecified federal offenses that may or may not have been committed. The legal effectiveness of such a form of pardon has not been tested in court.

The Justice Department normally requires that anyone filing a petition for a pardon wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving a pardon. However, this policy does not bind or restrict the president's power.{{cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/1.2 |title=28 C.F.R. § 1.2 Eligibility for filing petition for pardon |access-date=September 5, 2017}} The constitutionality of open pardons, such as Ford's pardon of Nixon, has never been judicially tested in the Supreme Court and may be open to question.{{cite journal|last1=Duker|first1=William F.|title=The President's Power to Pardon: A Constitutional History|journal=Wm. & Mary L. Rev.|date=1976|volume=18|pages=475–537|quote=The Supreme Court never has been called upon to judge the validity of an open pardon like the Nixon pardon. If it must do so in the future and if it continues to view Article II, section 2 in light of the meaning the framers intended it to have, the evidence raises a reasonable doubt of the constitutionality of the Nixon pardon.|url=http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2444&context=wmlr}}

While clemency may be granted without the filing of a formal request, in most cases the Office of the Pardon Attorney will consider only petitions from persons who have completed their sentences and, in addition, have demonstrated their ability to lead a responsible and productive life for a significant period after conviction or release from confinement.

The Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Wilson (1833) that a pardon could be rejected by the convict. In Burdick v. United States (1915), the court specifically said: "Circumstances may be made to bring innocence under the penalties of the law. If so brought, escape by confession of guilt implied in the acceptance of a pardon may be rejected, preferring to be the victim of the law rather than its acknowledged transgressor, preferring death even to such certain infamy." Commutations (reduction in prison sentence), unlike pardons (restoration of civil rights after prison sentence had been served) may not be refused. In Biddle v. Perovich {{ussc|274|480|1927}}, the subject of the commutation did not want to accept life in prison but wanted the death penalty restored. The Supreme Court said, "Just as the original punishment would be imposed without regard to the prisoner's consent and in the teeth of his will, whether he liked it or not, the public welfare, not his consent, determines what shall be done."Biddle v. Perovich {{ussc|274|480|1927}}, at 486

Federal pardons issued by the president apply only to federal offenses; they do not apply to state or local offenses or to private civil lawsuits.{{cite web |last1=Yoo |first1=John |last2=Delahunty |first2=Robert J. |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/12/joe-bidens-unpardonable-pardons/ |title=Joe Biden's Unpardonable Pardons |website=nationalreview.com |publisher=National Review |url-access=limited |access-date=December 16, 2024 |date=December 15, 2024}} Pardons for state crimes are handled by governors or a state pardon board.

The president's power to grant pardons explicitly does not apply "in cases of impeachment." This means that the president cannot use a pardon to stop an officeholder from being impeached, or to undo the effects of an impeachment and conviction.{{cite book |last=Amar |first=Akhil |author-link=Akhil Amar |date=2005 |title=America's Constitution: A Biography |location=New York |publisher=Random House |page=187 |isbn=978-0812972726 }}

In United States v. Wilson (1833), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a pardon can be rejected by the intended recipient and must be affirmatively accepted to be officially recognized by the courts. In that case, George Wilson was convicted of robbing the US Mail and was sentenced to death. Due to his friends' influence, Wilson was pardoned by President Andrew Jackson, but Wilson refused the pardon and the Supreme Court held that his rejection was valid and the court could not force a pardon upon him; and consequently the pardon must be introduced to the court by "plea, motion, or otherwise" to be considered as a point of fact and evidence.{{cite web |title=United States v. Wilson: 32 U.S. 150 (1833) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/150/case.html |work=Justia.com |access-date=July 24, 2017}}

According to Associate Justice Joseph McKenna, writing the majority opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court case Burdick v. United States, a pardon is "an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it." Federal courts have yet to make it clear how this logic applies to persons who are deceased (such as Henry Ossian Flipper, who was pardoned by Bill Clinton), those who are relieved from penalties as a result of general amnesties, and those whose punishments are relieved via a commutation of sentence (which cannot be rejected in any sense of the language).see Chapman v. Scott (C.C.A.) 10 F.(2d) 690 Brian Kalt, a law professor at Michigan State University, states that presidents sometimes (albeit rarely) grant pardons on the basis of innocence, and argues that if a president issues a pardon because they think an individual is innocent, then accepting that pardon would not be an admission of guilt.{{cite news |last1=Kalt |first1=Brian |title=Five myths about presidential pardons |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-presidential-pardons/2018/06/06/18447f84-69ba-11e8-bf8c-f9ed2e672adf_story.html |newspaper=Washington Post |access-date=2 April 2019}}

A presidential pardon restores various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense and may lessen to some extent the stigma arising from a conviction, but it does not erase or expunge the record of the conviction itself. Therefore, a person who is granted a pardon must still disclose any convictions on any form where such information is required although the person may also disclose the fact that a pardon was received.{{cite web |url=https://www.justice.gov/pardon/file/898541/dl|title=Pardon Information and Instructions |work=US Department of Justice - Office of the Pardon Attorney|date=2018-11-23 }} Also, as most civil disabilities arising from a criminal conviction, such as loss of the right to vote and hold state public office, are imposed by state rather than federal law, they may be removed only by state action.

{{See also|Rule of law#United States|l1=Rule of law in the United States}}

The legal and constitutional ability of a president to pardon himself or herself (self-pardon) is an unresolved issue. During the Watergate scandal and shortly before the Richard Nixon's resignation, Nixon's lawyer suggested that a self-pardon would be legal but the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued an opinion that concluded that a President may not self-pardon "[u]nder the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case".{{cite report|last=Foster|first=Michael A.|date=January 14, 2020|title=Presidential Pardons: Overview and Selected Legal Issues|publisher=Congressional Research Service|pages=13–14|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46179|access-date=January 3, 2024}}{{cite report|title=Presidential or Legislative Pardon of the President|date=August 5, 1974|publisher=Office of Legal Counsel|volume=1, Supplemental Opinions|pages=370–372|url=https://www.justice.gov/d9/olc/opinions/1974/08/31/op-olc-supp-v001-p0370_0.pdf|access-date=January 3, 2024}} The 1974 memo laid out a scenario in which, under the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the president could declare himself unable to perform his duties and could appoint the vice president as acting president. The acting president could then pardon the president and "thereafter the president could either resign or resume the duties of his office." The informal Nixon memo only addressed the presidential self-pardon in 69 words with no citations and lacks legal analysis, and is thus not authoritative on the issue.{{Cite journal|last=Conklin|first=Michael|date=2020-04-28|title=Please Allow Myself to Pardon . . . Myself: The Constitutionality of a Presidential Self-Pardon|url=https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3587921|language=en|location=Rochester, NY|doi=10.2139/ssrn.3587921 |ssrn=3587921|s2cid=225891854 }}{{Cite web|date=2020-12-15|title=The President Can Self-Pardon, but It Would Be an Impeachable Offense|url=https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/president-can-self-pardon-it-would-be-impeachable-offense|access-date=2021-01-18|website=Cato Institute|language=en}} The issue arose again in 1998, during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.{{cite news |author= |title=Can President Clinton Pardon Himself? |url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1998/12/can-president-clinton-pardon-himself.html |date=December 30, 1998 |access-date= December 25, 2020}}

On July 22, 2017, President Donald Trump tweeted, "While all agree the U.S. President has the complete power to pardon, why think of that when only crime so far is LEAKS against us. FAKE NEWS", prompting a series of news article and online commentary regarding the president's ability to pardon relatives, aides, and possibly even himself in relation to the 2017 Special Counsel investigation, which ultimately concluded President Donald Trump could not be indicted at the time.{{Cite news |title=Trump Says He Has 'Complete Power' to Pardon |last=Baker |first=Peter |newspaper=New York Times |date=July 22, 2017 |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/donald-trump-jeff-sessions.html}} The New York Times reported that during Trump's closing days in office he told aides he was considering pardoning himself.{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/us/politics/trump-self-pardon.html|title=Trump Is Said to Have Discussed Pardoning Himself|first1=Michael S.|last1=Schmidt|first2=Maggie|last2=Haberman|newspaper=The New York Times|date=January 7, 2021}}

Common arguments against self-pardons include the themes of self-judging and self-dealing, the unjust nature of the president being above the law, violations of the public trust, the inclusion of the word "grant" in the relevant clause (one cannot grant something to oneself), the definition of "pardon" (because one cannot grant forgiveness to oneself), and the inadequacy of other safeguards such as political consequences. However, such arguments have been disputed, and since the Supreme Court has issued constitutional rulings that affirmed the president's "unlimited" pardon power, a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision on a self-pardon would be required to settle the constitutionality of a self-pardon.

Constitutional issues of the pardon power have been raised in multiple Supreme Court cases. In Ex parte Garland, the Supreme Court majority ruled:

{{blockquote|The power thus conferred is unlimited, with the exception stated. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. This power of the President is not subject to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon, nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders. The benign prerogative of mercy reposed in him cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions.{{Cite web|title=Ex parte Garland|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/71/333|access-date=2021-01-18|website=LII / Legal Information Institute|language=en}}{{Cite news|last=Liptak|first=Adam|date=2017-08-26|title=Why Trump's Pardon of Arpaio Follows Law, Yet Challenges It |language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/26/us/politics/trump-pardon-joe-arpaio-constitution.html|access-date=2021-01-18|issn=0362-4331}}}}

In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote regarding the presidential powers:

{{blockquote|[T]he President is invested with certain important political powers ... [for] which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience[.] ... [W]hatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion[.] ... [T]he decision of the executive is conclusive.{{Cite web|title=U.S. Reports: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)|url=https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep005137/|access-date=2021-01-18|website=Library of Congress}}}}

However, Laurence Tribe, Richard Painter, and Norm Eisen have suggested that presidential self-pardons are precluded by the Impeachment Disqualification Clause of Article I, Section III,{{cite news|last1=Tribe|first1=Laurence H.|last2=Painter|first2=Richard|last3=Eisen|first3=Norman|date=July 21, 2017|title=Opinion: No, Trump can't pardon himself. The Constitution tells us so.|newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-trump-cant-pardon-himself-the-constitution-tells-us-so/2017/07/21/f3445d74-6e49-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html|access-date=January 4, 2024}} while Philip Bobbitt and other legal scholars have suggested that self-pardons would be precluded by the requirement that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in Article II, Section III or by the Due Process Clauses of the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment.{{cite web|last=Bobbitt|first=Philip|date=June 20, 2018|title=Self-Pardons: The President Can't Pardon Himself, So Why Do People Think He Can?|website=Lawfare|publisher=Brookings Institution/Lawfare|url=https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/self-pardons-president-cant-pardon-himself-so-why-do-people-think-he-can|access-date=January 4, 2024}}{{cite book|title=The Federalist Papers|editor-first=Clinton|editor-last=Rossiter|editor-link=Clinton Rossiter|publisher=Signet Classics|year=2003|orig-year=1961|pages=552; 559; 561|isbn=978-0-451-52881-0|title-link=The Federalist Papers}} The Impeachment Disqualification Clause states "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."{{cite book|title=The Federalist Papers|editor-first=Clinton|editor-last=Rossiter|editor-link=Clinton Rossiter|publisher=Signet Classics|year=2003|orig-year=1961|page=544|isbn=978-0-451-52881-0|title-link=The Federalist Papers}} The Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued an opinion in 2000 that concluded that it is constitutional to indict and try a former President for the same offenses for which the President was impeached by the House of Representatives and acquitted by the Senate.{{cite report|title= Whether a Former President May Be Indicted and Tried for the Same Offenses for Which He Was Impeached by the House and Acquitted by the Senate|date=August 18, 2000|publisher=Office of Legal Counsel|volume=24, Opinions|pages=110–155|url=https://www.justice.gov/d9/olc/opinions/2000/08/31/op-olc-v024-p0110_0.pdf|access-date=January 3, 2024}}{{cite report|last1=Cole|first1=Jared P.|last2=Garvey|first2=Todd|date=December 6, 2023|title=Impeachment and the Constitution|publisher=Congressional Research Service|pages=14–15|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46013|access-date=December 29, 2023}}

The pardon power was controversial from the outset; many Anti-Federalists remembered examples of royal abuses of the pardon power in Europe, and warned that the same would happen in the new republic.{{Cite news|last=Trickey|first=Erick|date=April 21, 2019|title='The President himself may be guilty': Why pardons were hotly debated by the Founding Fathers|language=en-US|newspaper=Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/04/21/the-president-himself-may-be-guilty-why-pardons-were-hotly-debated-by-founding-fathers/|access-date=2020-11-28|issn=0190-8286}} Critics such as the Anti-Federalists have argued that pardons have been used more often for the sake of political expediency than to correct judicial error.{{Cite journal|last=Crouch|first=Jeffrey|date=December 2008|title=The Law: Presidential Misuse of the Pardon Power|journal=Presidential Studies Quarterly|volume=38|issue=4|pages=722–734|doi=10.1111/j.1741-5705.2008.02674.x|jstor=41219712|issn=0360-4918|doi-access=free}}

In the 18th century, George Washington granted the first high-profile federal pardon to leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion on his final day in office.{{Cite news|url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion|title=Whiskey Rebellion {{!}} Definition, History, & Significance|work=Encyclopedia Britannica|access-date=2017-11-15|language=en}}

In the 19th century, Andrew Johnson controversially issued sweeping pardons of thousands of former Confederate officials and military personnel after the American Civil War.{{cite web|url=https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-179-granting-full-pardon-and-amnesty-for-the-offense-treason-against-the|title=Proclamation 179—Granting Full Pardon and Amnesty for the Offense of Treason Against the United States During the Late Civil War|date=December 25, 1868|last1=Johnson|first1=Andrew|author-link1=Andrew Johnson|publisher=American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara|access-date=December 2, 2024}}.

In the 20th century, Gerald Ford pardoned former president Richard Nixon on September 8, 1974, for official misconduct which gave rise to the Watergate scandal.{{cite news |title=Ford Gives Pardon To Nixon, Who Regrets 'My Mistakes' |date=September 9, 1974 |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0908.html|url-status=unfit|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130616093841/https://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0908.html|archive-date=June 16, 2013}} Polls showed a majority of Americans disapproved of the pardon, and Ford's public-approval ratings tumbled afterward.{{cite web|url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/23995/gerald-ford-retrospective.aspx|title=Gerald Ford Retrospective|publisher=Gallup, Inc.|date=December 29, 2006}}

Other publicly controversial uses of the pardon power include Jimmy Carter's grant of amnesty to Vietnam-era draft dodgers on his second day in office, January 21, 1977;{{Cite news |title=Carter pardons draft dodgers Jan. 21, 1977 |last=Glass |first=Andrew|work=Politico |date=January 21, 2008 |url= https://www.politico.com/story/2008/01/carter-pardons-draft-dodgers-jan-21-1977-007974}} George H. W. Bush's pardons of 75 people, including six Reagan administration officials accused or convicted in connection with the Iran–Contra affair; and Bill Clinton's commutation of sentences for 16 members of FALN in 1999.{{cite news|first=Chris|last=Black|date=1999-09-05|title=First lady opposes presidential clemency for Puerto Rican Nationalists|publisher=CNN|url=http://cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/09/05/senate.2000/hillary.puerto.rico/|url-status=dead|access-date=June 9, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060303215333/http://cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/09/05/senate.2000/hillary.puerto.rico/|archive-date=March 3, 2006}}

In the 21st century, Clinton's pardons of 140 people on his last day in office, January 20, 2001, including billionaire fugitive Marc Rich and his own half-brother, Roger Clinton, were heavily criticized.

President Donald Trump issued his first pardon to former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio on August 25, 2017;{{cite web|last1=Liptak|first1=Kevin|last2=Diaz|first2=Daniella|last3=Tatum|first3=Sophie|date=August 27, 2017|title=Trump pardons former Sheriff Joe Arpaio|url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/25/politics/sheriff-joe-arpaio-donald-trump-pardon/index.html|access-date=August 27, 2017|website=CNN}} Arpaio had been convicted of criminal contempt in federal court.Megan Cassidy, [http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2017/07/31/maricopa-county-sheriff-joe-arpaio-found-guilty-criminal-contempt-court/486278001/ Former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio found guilty of criminal contempt of court], The Arizona Republic (July 31, 2017). The pardon of Arpaio was relatively unusual in being issued early in Trump's presidency. It was met with widespread criticism from political opponents. On November 25, 2020, Trump announced, via Twitter, that he had pardoned his former National Security Advisor, retired General Michael Flynn.{{Cite news|date=November 26, 2020|title=Michael Flynn: Trump pardons ex-national security adviser|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55080923}} Flynn had pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the FBI, an offense which prompted Trump to fire Flynn as his national security advisor 23 days after taking office.{{cite news |last1=Herb |first1=Jeremy|last2=Polantz|first2=Katelyn|last3=Perez|first3=Evan|last4=Cohen|first4=Marshall|date=December 1, 2017|title=Flynn pleads guilty to lying to FBI, is cooperating with Mueller |work=CNN |url=https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/01/politics/michael-flynn-charged/index.html |access-date=February 18, 2019}} On December 23, 2020, Trump pardoned 26 friends and allies, including his longtime ally Roger Stone, former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and Charles Kushner, his son-in-law's father.{{Cite news |title=Trump issues 26 new pardons, including for Stone, Manafort and Charles Kushner |last1=Brown |first1=Pamela |last2=LeBlanc |first2=Paul |last3=Polantz |first3=Katelyn |last4=Liptak |first4=Kevin |publisher=CNN |date= December 24, 2020 |url= https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/23/politics/trump-pardons-stone-manafort-kushner/index.html}}

On December 1, 2024, during his lame-duck period, President Joe Biden issued a "full and unconditional pardon" to his son Hunter Biden who had been convicted on federal gun and tax evasion charges.{{Cite news |date=December 2, 2024 |title=President Biden pardons his son Hunter Biden |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/joe-biden-issue-pardon-son-hunter-biden-rcna182369 |access-date=December 2, 2024|publisher=NBC News |language=en}} The pardon also included any potential federal crimes that Hunter Biden may have committed "from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024". This was a reversal of his previous promises that he would not use his clemency powers for his son.{{Cite news |last=Cohen |first=Marshall |date=December 2, 2024 |title=President Biden pardons his son Hunter Biden |url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/01/politics/hunter-biden-joe-biden-pardon |access-date=December 2, 2024|publisher=CNN |language=en}} In his statement, he said that Hunter had been "selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted."

In December 2024, U.S. President Joe Biden commuted the sentences of 37 out of 40 individuals on federal death row, reducing their punishments to life imprisonment.{{Cite web |title=Biden commutes sentences of nearly all federal death row inmates |url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/biden-commutes-sentences-37-inmates-federal-death-row/story?id=117043698 |access-date=2024-12-23 |website=ABC News |language=en}}{{Disputed inline|talk=Talk:Federal_pardons_in_the_United_States#Biden_commutation_of_death_sentences|date=January 2025}}

On January 20, 2025, mere hours before his administration ended, President Joe Biden pardoned former NIAID director Anthony Fauci, retired general Mark Milley, and members of the House Select Committee that investigated the January 6th, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol.https://apnews.com/article/biden-trump-fauci-milley-pardons-january-6-3cba287f89051513fb48d7ae700ae747 In his last minutes in office, Biden also pardoned an additional five members of his family consisting of his younger brother James Biden and his wife Sara, younger brother Francis, as well as his younger sister Valerie Biden Owens and her husband John Owens. {{Cite news |date=January 20, 2025 |title=Biden Pardons 5 Members of His Family in Final Minutes in Office |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/20/us/politics/biden-pardons-family.html |access-date=January 20, 2025|work=New York Times |language=en}}

Also on January 20, 2025, newly inaugurated president Donald Trump pardoned close to 1,600 persons{{Cite web |last=Joscelyn |first=Tom |date=2025-01-22 |title=What just happened: Trump’s January 6 pardons and assaults on law enforcement officers by the numbers |url=https://www.justsecurity.org/106689/january-6-pardons-statistics/ |access-date=2025-04-12 |website=Just Security |language=en-US}} accused and convicted of illegal actions on January 6,{{cite web |last1=Quinn |first1=Melissa |last2=Legare |first2=Robert |last3=Kates |first3=Graham |title=Trump pardons about 1,500 Jan. 6 defendants - CBS News |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-jan-6-pardons/ |website=www.cbsnews.com |access-date=22 January 2025 |date=21 January 2025}} thereby bypassing input from the U.S. Office of the Pardon Attorney. According to the April 7, 2025, testimony of Elizabeth Oyer,{{Cite web |last=United States Department of Justice. Office of the Pardon Attorney |date=2025-03-11 |title=Former Pardon Attorney Elizabeth G. Oyer |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250311083218/https://www.justice.gov/archives/pardon/staff-profile/former-pardon-attorney-oyer |access-date=2025-04-12 |website=web.archive.org}} Pardon Attorney at the time, “That's not something we were asked to do in that context, and, in fact, it's not something that the Office as of the time of my departure had been asked to do at all in the context of clemency grants by this administration.”{{Cite web |last=U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary |date=April 7, 2025 |title=Bicameral spotlight hearing [53:04-53:15] |url=https://www.youtube.com/live/CZ042e1vxkc?si=1q1lpXEUH9VOS-mR}}{{Cite web |last=U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee |date=April 27, 2025 |title=Restoring accountability: Exposing Trump’s attacks on the rule of law |url=https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=5640 |access-date=2025-04-12 |website=House Committee on the Judiciary, Democrats |language=en}} Although presidents are not mandated to consult with the Pardon Attorney when issuing clemency, the violent nature of many January 6 indictments, coupled with the criminal histories of those accused and convicted, has led the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary to formally question the Department of Justice, the latter being under the direction of Pamela Bondi, to ask if the Department is violating its own guidelines—and failing to ensure public safety—by facilitating these pardons.{{Cite web |last=United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary |date=2025-04-01 |title=Durbin, Senate Judiciary Democrats ask AG Bondi for clarification on the Trump admin's extreme & partisan approach to the pardon power |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250404082729/https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/durbin-senate-judiciary-democrats-ask-ag-bondi-for-clarification-on-the-trump-admins-extreme-and-partisan-approach-to-the-pardon-power |access-date=2025-04-12 |website=web.archive.org}}

In mid-March 2025, President Trump challenged the validity of some of predecessor Joe Biden's pardons, incorrectly claiming they were invalidated because he allegedly used autopen.{{Cite web |title=Can Trump reverse Biden’s presidential pardons over alleged use of autopen? |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/3/18/can-trump-reverse-bidens-presidential-pardons-over-alleged-use-of-autopen |access-date=2025-03-20 |website=Al Jazeera |language=en}}{{Cite web |date=2025-03-18 |title=Fact-checking Trump's claim that Biden pardons are 'void' because he used an autopen |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-trumps-claim-that-biden-pardons-are-void-because-he-used-an-autopen |access-date=2025-03-20 |website=PBS News |language=en-us |quote=We found universal agreement among legal scholars that the Constitution doesn’t require a pardon’s direct human signing, and subsequent judicial decisions and legal memoranda support an autopen’s use for similar purposes. Legal scholars also agreed that there is no constitutional mechanism to overturn pardons once granted.}}

A symbolic use of the presidential pardon is the National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation in November, in which a domestic turkey is exempted from being slaughtered for Thanksgiving dinner and is allowed to live out its life on a farm.{{Cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/eight-years-of-obamas-turkey-pardons-idUSRTST0Q6|title=Eight years of Obama's turkey pardons|date=23 November 2016|work=Reuters}}

{{Portal|United States|Politics|law

}}

• List of people pardoned or granted clemency by the president of the United States

{{Reflist|30}}

• {{cite book |title=Pardon Power: How The Pardon System Works—And Why |year=2024 |first=Kimberly |last=Wehle |publisher=Woodhall Press |isbn=978-1954907508}}

{{Federal pardons in the United States}}

{{US Constitution}}

{{Authority control}}

Category:Pardons

Pardon presidential

Category:Presidency of the United States