Has clemency ever been proposed in a federal bill?
Executive summary
Yes: lawmakers have repeatedly proposed clemency-related changes in federal bills — from structural overhauls that would create an independent clemency board to narrower measures governing how clemency is exercised for specific jurisdictions — even as the Constitution vests the core pardon power in the President and courts warn that Congress faces constitutional constraints if it tries to usurp that power [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. A bill to rewire the clemency machinery — the FIX Clemency Act
House legislation introduced by Rep. Ayanna Pressley and allies would abolish the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney and create an independent nine‑member U.S. Clemency Board to review and recommend relief, explicitly leaving ultimate clemency authority with the President while seeking to reduce perceived DOJ bottlenecks and biases in the current process [1] [2]. Proponents frame the FIX Clemency Act as a corrective to a backlog of thousands of petitions and to an internal review process they say is “inherently flawed” and contributes to mass incarceration; the bill would require presidential appointment of board members and include seats for a formerly incarcerated person and victims’ representatives, among others [1] [2].
2. Targeted legislative proposals have also addressed clemency’s scope
Not all congressional proposals aim to replace the pardon office; some are narrowly tailored, such as H.R.5698, a recent 119th‑Congress bill that would direct that clemency authority for offenses against the District of Columbia be exercised in accordance with D.C. law — a technical but politically significant change that recognizes local lawmaking and control over certain clemency decisions [3]. The federal rulebook and administrative guidance governing clemency applications remain rooted in executive regulations and DOJ practice, and petitions still proceed through formal application processes and investigatory steps described in federal regulations [5] [6].
3. Constitutional friction: what Congress can — and probably cannot — do
Legal scholars and legislative summaries caution that while Congress can legislate around the consequences of clemency or create review structures, any effort that attempts to strip or punish recipients of pardons or to evade the President’s plenary pardon authority risks running afoul of constitutional limits such as the prohibition on bills of attainder and ex post facto laws; Congress has tried and failed in the past to curtail pardons through statutory or constitutional maneuvers, and courts have pushed back when legislation functions as an indirect punishment that circumvents executive clemency [4] [7]. The Congressional Research Service emphasizes that Congress may enact laws affecting the legal status of persons who receive clemency but must navigate separation-of-powers constraints and historic protections for executive clemency [4].
4. Why lawmakers propose bills about clemency: politics, reform, and reaction
Legislative proposals reflect a mix of motivations: criminal‑justice reformers seek to make clemency more accessible and less discretionary, citing thousands of pending petitions and perceived inequities in DOJ review [1] [8], while other bills or legislative attention may be reactive — responding to controversial or sweeping pardons by attempting to limit collateral effects or clarify jurisdictional rules, as seen in attention to recent high‑profile pardon actions [9] [10]. Policymakers also pursue narrower administrative fixes — from sentencing‑related notices to parole eligibility changes — that interact with clemency practices without directly seizing presidential pardon power [11] [12].
5. Bottom line: proposals exist, but they must respect the President’s power
Multiple federal bills have proposed reforms to how clemency is reviewed, recommended, or administered — most notably the FIX Clemency Act and targeted measures like H.R.5698 — demonstrating congressional appetite to reshape process and jurisdictional application [1] [2] [3]. At the same time, longstanding constitutional doctrine and scholarly analysis constrain Congress’s ability to transfer the actual pardon power away from the President or to impose punitive consequences that would nullify the effect of pardons, meaning that legislative proposals tend to focus on process, recommendation, and collateral legal consequences rather than outright abolition of executive clemency [4] [7].