Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Has any president attempted to pardon state crimes and what happened?
Executive summary
Presidents have broad authority to pardon “offences against the United States,” but that authority only extends to federal crimes — not state offenses — and courts and scholars treat some ambitious uses (blanket or preemptive pardons) as legally unsettled [1] [2]. Historical examples show presidents have issued sweeping federal clemency (Gerald Ford for Richard Nixon, Andrew Johnson for Confederates) and pretrial or pre-sentencing pardons, but available sources make clear a president cannot reach state charges and that the legal effect of some broad pardons has never been fully litigated [3] [1].
1. Presidents who tried wide-reaching clemency and what followed
Presidents have not shied from expansive pardons: President Gerald Ford issued an “open” pardon to Richard Nixon covering any federal crimes Nixon “had committed or may have committed” related to Watergate, and Andrew Johnson issued broad post‑Civil War pardons for Confederates — both are historical precedents for wide clemency [3] [4]. The Ford pardon was never litigated to a final judicial determination on the limits of such an “open” pardon, so while politically consequential it established no binding legal rule about the reach of presumptive pardons [3]. Andrew Johnson’s blanket pardons had massive political consequences in Reconstruction-era governance and have been criticized for enabling the restoration of former Confederates to state and federal power, with long-term effects on civil rights — a reminder that pardons can produce powerful policy outcomes beyond the courtroom [4].
2. Federal power is clear; power over state crimes is not
The Constitution confines the presidential clemency power to federal offenses, and modern legal commentary and government annotations consistently emphasize that a president cannot pardon state crimes — only governors or state boards can do that under state law [1] [5]. Leading institutions and expert analyses reiterate the limitation: the president “may grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States,” and courts and commentators treat that as a bright-line restriction that leaves state prosecutions intact [2] [6]. That means any attempt to use the federal pardon power to halt state prosecutions would confront both constitutional text and strong consensus among scholars and the Department of Justice’s historical practice [5] [1].
3. Pretrial, pre-sentencing and presumptive pardons — practice versus litigation
Presidents have issued clemency before sentencing and even before indictment in certain instances; for example, modern presidents have pardoned individuals who were charged or had pled but not yet sentenced [7]. Courts have addressed aspects of acceptance and effect (Burdick v. United States) but have not squarely resolved every hypothetical — notably the judiciary has not definitively settled the full legal effect of an “open” pardon that purports to cover unspecified future or uncharged acts [3]. Legal scholars stress that while the pardon power is broad and can be exercised before legal proceedings, its use to immunize future wrongdoing or to completely erase legal consequences in other forums can raise unsettled legal questions and political backlash [2] [6].
4. Contemporary politics: pardon power, limits and controversies
Recent administrations have used clemency aggressively and controversially; the Trump and Biden administrations both issued notable pardons and commutations, and commentators and courts continue to debate the scope and prudence of some of these actions [8] [7]. Commentators warn that expansive uses of the pardon power can have political and institutional consequences — from public distrust to prompting state-level responses (for example, New York enacted measures aimed at preserving state prosecution in some contexts) — and pundits have invoked historical cautions about unrestrained pardon power [9] [4]. At the same time, defenders of robust clemency point to its constitutional role as a check on prosecutorial excess and a tool for mercy; that normative debate is present in current reporting and analysis [6] [8].
5. Bottom line for the original question — has any president tried to pardon state crimes?
Available reporting and legal analysis make a simple legal point: presidents have not succeeded in lawfully pardoning state crimes because the Constitution and settled annotations confine pardons to federal offenses, and scholars uniformly say a president cannot pardon state law violations [1] [5]. Some presidents have attempted broad or presumptive federal pardons that reached uncharged federal conduct, but the judiciary has not conclusively resolved every doctrinal edge of such pardons, leaving certain hypothetical limits unsettled [3] [2]. If you are asking whether any president has effectively stopped state prosecutions through a federal pardon, available sources do not report a case where a presidential pardon extinguished state-level charges or prevented state-level prosecution [1] [5].
6. What to watch next and why it matters
Future controversies will likely track three fault lines: attempts to use federal pardons to shield political allies from federal scrutiny, state responses and legislation intended to preserve state charging authority, and any judicial tests that might be brought to clarify gray areas about presumptive or preemptive pardons [6] [9]. Because the constitutional text and leading scholarly treatments anchor the pardon power to federal offenses, the more immediate legal barrier to any presidential attempt to stop state prosecutions is well established — but political fallout, state countermeasures, and unresolved doctrinal questions about the most sweeping federal pardons ensure this will remain a live constitutional and political issue [1] [6].