Does the president have pardoning power for state crimes or only federal offenses?

1. Constitutional text and the single clear limit

Article II, Section 2 grants the president the power “to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment,” and courts and legal commentators construe that language to confine presidential clemency to federal offenses only — state crimes and civil claims lie outside that clause ^{[1] [3]}.

2. How federal practice and agencies explain it

The Department of Justice’s Office of the Pardon Attorney and related federal guidance explicitly say presidential clemency is limited to federal offenses and to prosecutions brought in the name of the United States (including the U.S. Attorney for D.C. in some contexts), underscoring that presidents cannot use their pardon pen to wipe out state convictions ^[2].

3. Judicial and scholarly consensus: “not limitless” but clear scope

Legal scholarship and court treatments repeatedly emphasize that while the pardon power is broad with some unsettled edges (e.g., questions about self‑pardon), its geographic substantive scope is clear: it covers federal criminal offenses but not state crimes or civil liability — a point echoed by the Library of Congress’s Constitution Annotated and multiple legal centers ^{[1] [3] [4]}.

4. Practical consequences: state prosecutions unaffected

Because presidents cannot pardon state crimes, a federal pardon won’t block state indictment, conviction, or punishment for the same conduct to the extent state law provides crimes; states retain independent authority to prosecute and to offer clemency through governors or state boards ^{[5] [6]}. Commentators note that many most serious prosecutions occur at the state level, so presidential clemency covers only a subset of criminal cases ^{[6] [7]}.

5. Where confusion often arises — overlap and dual sovereignty

Some conduct can violate both federal and state law (e.g., certain drug trafficking, kidnapping, or fraud schemes). A presidential pardon for the federal offense would not erase a separate state prosecution for the same facts; dual sovereignty permits separate federal and state liability, and presidential clemency does not negate a state government’s independent power to prosecute or pardon ^{[4] [7]}.

6. Edge cases and open questions that reporters flag

Sources note unsettled, narrower questions remain — for example, whether a pardon affects collateral consequences that intersect with state systems, or how courts would treat novel attempts by a president to blunt state prosecutions indirectly — but the core rule that the president cannot pardon state crimes is repeatedly affirmed by constitutional commentary and practice ^{[8] [9]}. Available sources do not mention any authoritative precedent allowing a president to commute or pardon a state conviction.

7. Who does handle state clemency?

States have their own clemency regimes: governors, state pardons boards, or similar mechanisms administer forgiveness or commutation for state offenses. That separation preserves federalism: the federal executive cannot unilaterally erase punishments imposed by a state government ^{[6] [10]}.

8. Why this matters politically and legally

Because presidents can only affect federal cases, high‑profile federal pardons can’t immunize people from state juries or governors’ decisions, and critics say invoking federal pardons to shield allies won’t necessarily stop state criminal exposure — a point stressed by analysts warning against overreliance on the pardon as an exemption from state accountability ^{[9] [5]}.

Limitations and sourcing note: This summary relies solely on the provided sources, which consistently describe the presidential pardon as limited to federal offenses and exclude state crimes ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Where the sources record unsettled doctrinal questions (for example, self‑pardon hypotheticals), they do so while preserving the foundational limit to federal offenses ^{[4] [8]}.