Has any U.S. president ever tried to pardon state-level crimes and was it legally valid?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
No U.S. president has lawfully pardoned someone for a state crime; the Constitution limits the presidential pardon to “offences against the United States,” and legal authorities and government guides uniformly say presidents can only pardon federal offenses, while governors handle state clemency [1] [2] [3]. Historical practice confirms presidents have used broad federal clemency (e.g., Ford’s Nixon pardon), but available sources show no precedent of a valid presidential pardon extinguishing state criminal liability [1] [4].
1. The constitutional boundary: “offences against the United States”
The clearest legal statement is the Constitution itself: Article II gives the president power to grant “Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States,” a phrase the Library of Congress’s Constitution Annotated and multiple legal explainers interpret to confine the pardon power to federal crimes, not state offenses [2] [5]. Treatises and practice follow that textual limit: presidential clemency cannot reach acts prosecuted under state law [1] [6].
2. How courts and scholars have described the limit
Legal scholarship and federal agencies repeatedly state the same rule. The American Bar Association’s legal fact check and FindLaw both say a president cannot pardon state crimes because the Constitution references federal “offences against the United States” [1] [6]. The Constitution Annotated reinforces that reading and cites Supreme Court precedents that shape the scope of clemency as federal in reach [2] [5].
3. Historical practice: broad federal clemency, not state nullification
Presidents have exercised sweeping clemency for federal matters — Gerald Ford’s full pardon of Richard Nixon is the canonical example of a presidential pardon for federal wrongdoing — but that practice did not and could not erase state-level liability [1] [4]. Modern administrations have issued mass federal pardons and commutations for federal prosecutions, but available records and reporting do not show any instance where a president successfully used that power to negate a state conviction [7] [8].
4. Why the distinction matters in practice: prosecutions, records, and rights
A presidential pardon removes federal legal jeopardy; it does not alter state criminal records, nor does it prevent state prosecutors from pursuing charges that fall under state law. Commentary from the Brennan Center and other legal observers stresses that even if a president could pardon federal charges broadly, state prosecutions remain intact and independent [4]. Government guidance for applicants and courts echoes that state clemency is the governor’s or state board’s domain [3] [9].
5. Common confusions and where reporting has focused recently
Recent headlines about high-profile federal pardons — mass January 6 pardons, pardon lists in 2025, and disputes over federal clemency procedure — have revived public confusion about reach and limits [8] [7] [10]. Fact-checkers and legal blogs have pushed back, noting that presidential pardons only address federal offenses and that governors can pardon state convictions [11] [12] [13].
6. Legal gray areas and explicit limits courts have recognized
There are narrower doctrinal nuances: courts have discussed whether certain federal actions could affect collateral state consequences and whether pardons change evidentiary uses of pardoned acts — but those cases still rest on the baseline that the pardon power covers federal offenses. The Constitution Annotated cites cases showing pardons do not necessarily erase all legal consequences in other spheres; they mitigate or set aside federal punishment but do not overturn judgments by other tribunals [5].
7. What the sources do not say (important caveats)
Available sources do not mention any case in which a presidential pardon was treated as legally effective to cancel an actual state conviction or stop an ongoing state prosecution (not found in current reporting). They also do not provide a Supreme Court ruling directly testing a hypothetical presidential effort to pardon state crimes because that factual scenario has not been established in the record cited here (not found in current reporting).
8. Bottom line for readers and policymakers
Constitutional text, scholarly interpretation, federal agency guidance, and historical practice all converge: presidents may only pardon federal offenses; governors and state clemency bodies handle state crimes [2] [1] [3]. Any public claim that a president can validly pardon state-level crimes is contradicted by the authoritative sources cited above [1] [2]. Where debate exists, it centers on collateral effects of federal pardons, not on a president’s authority over state prosecutions [5].