Department of Justice

The President’s clemency authority is among the most expansive powers granted under the U.S. Constitution. Rooted directly in the constitutional text, the power to grant reprieves and pardons has long been understood as broad, flexible, and largely insulated from judicial or legislative interference. Yet, as both historical practice and Supreme Court precedent make clear, the pardon power is not without meaningful limits. For legal researchers, practitioners, and law librarians, understanding these boundaries is essential to placing executive clemency within its proper constitutional and institutional context.

At its core, the pardon power extends only to “offenses against the United States,” meaning federal crimes. This jurisdictional limitation is fundamental. A presidential pardon cannot reach state prosecutions or convictions, which remain within the authority of state governors or other state level clemency bodies. In an era where parallel federal and state investigations are increasingly common, this distinction has taken on renewed practical importance.

The Constitution also draws a clear textual boundary in cases of impeachment. While a president may pardon individuals for federal criminal offenses, that authority cannot be used to halt or undo impeachment proceedings initiated by the House of Representatives or judgments rendered by the Senate. This exception reflects the Framers’ intent to preserve Congress’s role as a check on executive misconduct, ensuring that the pardon power cannot be deployed as a shield against political accountability.

A message from William R. Bay, President of the American Bar Association, February 10, 2025:

It has been three weeks since Inauguration Day. Most Americans recognize that newly elected leaders bring change. That is expected. But most Americans also expect that changes will take place in accordance with the rule of law and in an orderly manner that respects the lives of affected individuals and the work they have been asked to perform.Instead, we see wide-scale affronts to the rule of law itself, such as attacks on constitutionally protected birthright citizenship, the dismantling of USAID and the attempts to criminalize those who support lawful programs to eliminate bias and enhance diversity.

We have seen attempts at wholesale dismantling of departments and entities created by Congress without seeking the required congressional approval to change the law. There are efforts to dismiss employees with little regard for the law and protections they merit, and social media announcements that disparage and appear to be motivated by a desire to inflame without any stated factual basis. This is chaotic. It may appeal to a few. But it is wrong. And most Americans recognize it is wrong. It is also contrary to the rule of law.The American Bar Association supports the rule of law. That means holding governments, including our own, accountable under law. We stand for a legal process that is orderly and fair. We have consistently urged the administrations of both parties to adhere to the rule of law. We stand in that familiar place again today. And we do not stand alone. Our courts stand for the rule of law as well.Just last week, in rejecting citizenship challenges, the U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said that the rule of law is, according to this administration, something to navigate around or simply ignore. “Nevertheless,” he said, “in this courtroom and under my watch, the rule of law is a bright beacon which I intend to follow.” He is correct. The rule of law is a bright beacon for our country.In the last 21 days, more than a dozen lawsuits have been filed alleging that the administration’s actions violate the rule of law and are contrary to the Constitution or laws of the United States. The list grows longer every day.

Articles Tagged with Department of Justice

The Boundaries of Executive Clemency: Legal Limits on the Presidential Pardon Power

The ABA Supports the Rule of Law