What a Federal Pardon Does and Does Not Do

A pardon is the President’s official forgiveness for a federal crime.

It removes any unpaid or unserved part of the sentence that remains when it is granted, and it removes civil disabilities imposed because of the conviction, such as limits on voting, holding state or local office, or sitting on a jury. It does not signify innocence, and it does not erase the conviction (Office of the Pardon Attorney FAQ; Office of the Pardon Attorney).

Pardon meaning

In everyday English, to pardon someone means to forgive them. In government, a pardon is an official act by the head of the executive branch that forgives a crime. For federal crimes, that power belongs to the President.

The Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, which reviews pardon requests, describes a pardon as “an expression of the President’s forgiveness.” It says a pardon can be granted in recognition of a person’s acceptance of responsibility and good conduct for a significant time after conviction or the end of the sentence, and that it “does not signify innocence” (Office of the Pardon Attorney, Frequently Asked Questions).

A pardon for a whole group of people, usually by proclamation, is often called an amnesty. The Supreme Court has said the two have much the same ultimate effect but different purposes, and that an amnesty is usually general, “addressed to classes or even communities” (Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915)).

Where the pardon power comes from

The Constitution gives the pardon power in one sentence: the President “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment” (U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1). That clause sets two limits. The power covers federal crimes only, not state convictions, and it cannot be used in cases of impeachment.

The framers took the idea from English law. Defending the clause, Alexander Hamilton wrote that “humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed” (The Federalist No. 74). He also argued that “in seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquillity of the commonwealth” (same source).

Today, requests go through the Office of the Pardon Attorney under the Justice Department’s clemency rules, 28 C.F.R. §§ 1.1–1.11. The Department investigates each petition and the Attorney General sends the President a written recommendation (28 C.F.R. § 1.6). Those rules are advisory. They do not limit the President’s power (28 C.F.R. § 1.11).

What a pardon does

According to the Office of the Pardon Attorney (FAQ), a federal pardon:

• removes any unpaid or unserved part of the sentence that remains when the pardon is granted;
• removes civil disabilities that come from the conviction, such as limits on the right to vote, hold state or local office, or sit on a jury;
• should lessen the stigma of the conviction, and may help with licenses, bonding, or employment;
• restores federal firearms rights, although state, territorial, or tribal law may still limit gun possession; and
• under some, but not all, circumstances, can remove the legal basis for deportation.

What a pardon does not do

• It does not erase the conviction. Expungement is a court remedy that the President cannot grant. After a pardon, both the conviction and the pardon appear on the person’s record (Office of the Pardon Attorney FAQ).
• It does not mean the person was innocent (same source).
• It does not end civil cases such as civil forfeitures or civil IRS or SEC actions (same source).
• It does not reach state convictions. The President’s power covers federal offenses only (same source).

A pardon also differs from a commutation, which shortens a sentence someone is still serving but does not restore rights. See pardon vs. commutation for a side-by-side comparison, and clemency meaning for every form of clemency.

How the Supreme Court has defined a pardon

The Constitution does not define the word, so the Supreme Court has filled in its meaning over time.

• United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 150 (1833). Chief Justice Marshall called a pardon “an act of grace, proceeding from the power intrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed, from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.” The Court treated a pardon as a deed that has to be delivered and accepted, and held that the person it is offered to may reject it.
• Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866). A. H. Garland, an Arkansas lawyer who sided with the Confederacy, received a pardon from the President in July 1865. A federal law passed that year required lawyers to swear they had never supported the rebellion before practicing in federal court. The Court held that the law could not shut Garland out, because doing so would punish him for an offense the President had pardoned. It described the power as unlimited except in cases of impeachment, said it may be used before charges are filed, while a case is pending, or after conviction, and held that Congress cannot limit it. The opinion also used broad language about a pardon blotting out guilt; today, the Office of the Pardon Attorney says a pardon does not signify innocence and that the conviction stays on the record.
• Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915). George Burdick, a newspaper editor, refused to answer a federal grand jury’s questions on the ground that his answers might incriminate him. He was then handed a presidential pardon, and he refused to accept it. The Court held that a pardon must be accepted to take effect, that Burdick had the right to refuse it, and that he could therefore still decline to testify. It contrasted a pardon with legislative immunity, saying a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.”
• Biddle v. Perovich, 274 U.S. 480 (1927). President Taft had commuted a death sentence to life in prison. Writing for the Court, Justice Holmes said, “A 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.” The Court held that the prisoner’s consent was not needed for that change, and that the reasoning of Burdick did not extend to it.
• Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974). The Court upheld a commutation with a no-parole condition. It held that the pardon power “flows from the Constitution alone,” that Congress cannot modify it, and that the President may attach conditions that do not themselves offend the Constitution.

Types of pardons

• Full (unconditional) pardon. Forgiveness with no conditions attached.
• Conditional pardon or commutation. A grant that comes with conditions, which the Supreme Court has allowed as long as the conditions do not themselves offend the Constitution (Schick v. Reed).
• Pardon before charges or conviction. The pardon power can be used before a person is charged (Ex parte Garland). For example, on September 8, 1974, President Ford pardoned former President Nixon for all federal offenses he “has committed or may have committed or taken part in” while President (Office of the Pardon Attorney, Pardons Granted by President Gerald Ford; quoted in Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024)).
• Amnesty. A pardon for a group. For example, on January 21, 1977, President Carter issued a proclamation pardoning certain violations of the Military Selective Service Act (Proclamation 4483). For more history, see famous presidential pardons.

Who can ask for a pardon, and when

A person can ask with or without a lawyer. The Office of the Pardon Attorney says the process is open to all eligible applicants, and that the President can pardon someone who has not yet been charged or who has not finished the sentence (Office of the Pardon Attorney FAQ). Justice Department rules still say not to file until at least five years after release from confinement or, if no prison sentence was imposed, until at least five years after the conviction, and generally not while on probation, parole, or supervised release (28 C.F.R. § 1.2). The Department may waive the five-year wait (Justice Manual 9-140.112). Those rules do not limit the President (28 C.F.R. § 1.11).

The Justice Manual lists the main things the Department weighs: conduct, character, and reputation after the conviction; how serious and how recent the offense was; acceptance of responsibility, remorse, and atonement; the need for relief; and the views of officials such as the prosecutor and the sentencing judge (Justice Manual 9-140.112). For the steps, see how to get a presidential pardon and the pardon application.

Limits on the pardon power

The Constitution states two limits: federal offenses only, and no use in cases of impeachment. Whether a President can pardon himself is a separate, unsettled question. No court has decided it; see can a president pardon himself.

Getting help

Criminal Center handles federal cases nationwide, including federal pardon petitions. No one can promise that the President will grant clemency.