Could selling pardons by a president violate federal statutes like bribery or obstruction of justice?
Executive summary
Federal law bars bribery and makes obstruction of justice a crime, and multiple legal experts and watchdogs say those statutes can apply when pardons are sold or used to derail investigations [1] [2]. Scholarly and advocacy analyses conclude a “pardon-for-pay” or a pardon issued or promised with corrupt intent — to influence testimony or block inquiries — can trigger bribery and obstruction liability, though courts have not definitively resolved all doctrines and Congress has proposed clarifying legislation [1] [3] [4].
1. The statutory frame: bribery and obstruction reach the pardon context
Federal bribery law criminalizes offering or giving “anything of value” to influence an official act; obstruction statutes punish actions intended to impede government proceedings — both have been invoked in analyses arguing that paying for a pardon or using a pardon to block a probe can be criminal [1] [5]. Protect Democracy and legal commentators explicitly state that bribery and obstruction laws constrain the pardon power and that a pardon “issued—or offered or promised—to impede an investigation” could be unlawful [2] [6].
2. What prosecutors and judges have investigated before: a real-world precedent
The Justice Department has previously investigated alleged schemes to buy pardons; court filings unsealed from that probe describe a “bribery conspiracy” in which a person would offer a substantial political contribution in exchange for a pardon, and observers said selling pardons is prohibited by federal bribery law [1] [7]. Those inquiries show prosecutors view pardon-for-pay allegations as within reach of bribery statutes even though no universal prosecutorial blueprint exists [1].
3. “Dangling” a pardon vs. issuing one: different legal risks
Scholars distinguish secret offers or “dangles” of clemency from formal pardons. A dangling pardon intended to discourage cooperation with an investigation is treated by many experts as particularly suspect for obstruction because it’s covert, aimed at influencing witness choices, and lacks the public accountability of a formal clemency grant [8] [9]. Legal commentators argue the corrupt intent element for obstruction is central: if a pardon — offered or granted — was designed to impede a proceeding, obstruction charges are plausible [3] [5].
4. Constitutional power vs. criminal accountability: the unresolved tension
The Constitution vests the pardon power in the president, and some defenders argue it is broad; critics and scholars counter that constitutional authority does not immunize corrupt uses of that power and that past historical episodes (Watergate) and scholarly work treat abusive pardons as potentially criminal or impeachable [10] [11]. Reform advocates propose statutory clarifications precisely because the current intersection of pardon authority and criminal law contains ambiguities that courts have not fully settled [2] [4].
5. Legislative and institutional responses under discussion
Congress has considered bills — for example, the Abuse of the Pardon Prevention Act — that would expressly treat a pardon or offer of pardon as an “official act” for bribery statutes and require disclosure to reduce ambiguity about criminal exposure [4]. Advocacy groups urge stronger oversight, automatic DOJ or congressional review of suspicious pardons, and clearer statutory language making it explicit that pardons cannot be bought or used to obstruct [2] [6].
6. Competing perspectives and limits of current reporting
Some sources and presidential lawyers argue pardons are constitutionally protected and not prosecutable as obstruction when legitimately exercised; others emphasize intent and context to distinguish lawful mercy from corrupt acts [10]. Available sources do not mention any final Supreme Court ruling that fully resolves whether a president can be criminally prosecuted for issuing a pardon with corrupt intent — that question remains contested in scholarship and policy proposals (not found in current reporting).
7. Practical takeaways for the reader
Selling pardons or exchanging money or contributions for clemency fits the ordinary statutory text of bribery and has prompted federal inquiries before; promising or issuing pardons to halt investigations creates a plausible obstruction theory if prosecutors can prove corrupt intent and knowledge of proceedings [1] [5]. But legal uncertainty persists, and many experts urge Congress and courts to clarify the reach of bribery and obstruction rules so that the constitutional pardon power cannot be turned into a marketable instrument of corruption [2] [4].