Federal pardons in the United States
A federal pardon in the United States is the action of the President of the United States that completely sets aside the punishment for a federal crime. The authority to take such action is granted to the president by of the U.S. Constitution. Under the Constitution, the president's clemency power extends to federal criminal offenses. All requests for executive clemency for federal offenses are directed to the Office of the Pardon Attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice for investigation and review. The pardon does not take effect if the beneficiary of the pardon does not accept it. The Supreme Court stated in Burdick v. United States that acceptance of a pardon carries an "imputation of guilt" and is a confession to such guilt.
The president's pardon power is limited to federal offenses because the Constitution only grants the president the power to pardon "ffenses against the United States." An offense that solely violates state law is not an offense against the United States. Experts disagree as to whether presidents can pardon themselves, and there is disagreement about how the pardon power applies to cases involving obstructions of an impeachment. The pardon can also be used for a presumptive case, such as when President Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon over any possible crimes regarding the Watergate scandal.
Constitutional provision
The pardon powers of the President are based on Article Two of the United States Constitution, which provides:The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites, and amnesties.
Definitions
- A pardon is an executive order granting clemency for a conviction. It may be granted "at any time" after the commission of the crime. 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. Its practical effect is the restoration of civil rights and statutory disabilities associated with a past criminal conviction. In rarer cases, such as the pardon of Richard Nixon, a pardon can also halt criminal proceedings and prevent an indictment.
- 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.
Early history
Pardons granted by presidents from George Washington until Grover Cleveland's first term were hand written 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.
Modern process
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.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. President Gerald 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 Justice Department requires that anyone requesting a pardon wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving a pardon. The constitutionality of open pardons, such as Ford's pardon of Nixon, has never been judicially tested in the Supreme Court and is open to question.
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 that a pardon could be rejected by the convict. In Burdick v. United States, 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, unlike pardons may not be refused. In Biddle v. Perovich, the subject of the commutation did not want to accept life in prison but wanted the death penalty restored. The Supreme Court said, " pardon in our days is not a private act of grace from an individual happening to possess power. It is a part of the Constitutional scheme. When granted it is the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by inflicting less than what the judgment fixed."
Limitations
Federal pardons issued by the president apply only to federal law; they do not apply to civil, state, or local offenses. Federal pardons also do not apply to cases of impeachment. Pardons for state crimes are handled by governors or a state pardon board.One limitation to the president's power to grant pardons is "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.
A pardon can be rejected by the intended recipient and must be affirmatively accepted to be officially recognized by the courts. George Wilson was convicted of robbing the US Mail in Pennsylvania and sentenced to death. Due to his friends' influence, Wilson was pardoned by President Andrew Jackson. Wilson refused the pardon and in 1833, the United States Supreme Court held in United States v. Wilson that his rejection—and consequently the pardon not being introduced to the court by "plea, motion, or otherwise" as a point of fact and evidence—was valid and the court could not force a pardon upon him.
Whether accepting a pardon is inherently an admission of guilt is still debated by many law historians. According to Associate Justice Joseph McKenna, writing the majority opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court case Burdick v. United States, a pardon "carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it." Associate Justice McKenna was referring to cases in the denial of a pardon. His comment was not intended for all pardons. Also, the federal courts have yet to make it clear how this logic applies to persons who are deceased, those who are relieved from penalties as a result of general amnesties, and those whose punishments are relieved via a commutation of sentence. Brian Kalt, a law professor at Michigan State University, notes that presidents sometimes grant a pardon to someone on the basis that the person is innocent. If a president thinks an individual is innocent and issues a pardon, then accepting a pardon would not mean the individual is guilty.
While a presidential pardon will restore various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from a conviction, it will not erase or expunge the record of that conviction. Therefore, even if a person is granted a pardon, they must still disclose their conviction on any form where such information is required, although they may also disclose the fact that they received a pardon. In addition, most civil disabilities attendant upon a federal felony conviction, such as loss of the right to vote and hold state public office, are imposed by state rather than federal law, and also may be removed by state action.
Self-pardons
The legal and constitutional ability of a president to pardon himself is an unresolved issue. During the Watergate scandal, President Nixon's lawyer suggested that a self-pardon would be legal, while the Department of Justice issued a memorandum opinion on August 5, 1974, stating that a president cannot pardon himself. 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 issue arose again in 1998, during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.
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.
Arguments in favor of self-pardons include constitutional themes against self-judging and self-dealing, the unjust nature of the president being above the law, violations of the public trust, the definition of "pardon" excludes self-pardoning, and the inadequacy of other safeguards such as political consequences.
Controversies
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. Critics argue that pardons have been used more often for the sake of political expediency than to correct judicial error.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.
In the 19th century, Andrew Johnson controversially issued sweeping pardons of thousands of former Confederate officials and military personnel after the American Civil War.
In the 20th century, President Gerald Ford pardoned former President Richard Nixon on September 8, 1974, for official misconduct which gave rise to the Watergate scandal. Polls showed a majority of Americans disapproved of the pardon, and Ford's public-approval ratings tumbled afterward. Other 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; 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.
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 brother, Roger Clinton, were heavily criticized. President Donald Trump issued his first pardon to former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio on August 25, 2017. Arpaio had been convicted of criminal contempt in federal court. Trump's pardon was met with widespread criticism from political opponents, and was relatively unusual because it was issued early in Trump's presidency.