How do state convictions interact with presidential powers like pardons or immunity?

1. The constitutional boundary: federal offenses only

The text and long-standing judicial interpretation make clear that the presidential pardon power reaches federal crimes alone — “Offences against the United States” — and thus is not a tool to absolve someone of state-law convictions; governors or state boards handle pardons for state crimes ^{[1] [2] [5]}. Legal commentators and courts consistently treat that limitation as “settled law,” meaning a presidential pardon cannot be invoked to nullify a state prosecution or its sentence ^{[6] [7]}.

2. Timing and scope — powerful, flexible, but not omnipotent

A president may grant clemency before charging, during prosecution, or after conviction, and can issue pardons, commutations, and conditional grants with broad discretion — but that discretion is framed by constitutional constraints like the impeachment exception and practical limits such as acceptance by the recipient ^{[1] [8] [3]}. Despite this plenary grant, federal pardons do not automatically expunge records or restore state-granted civil rights; they primarily remove federal penalties and may not prevent collateral state consequences ^{[1] [4]}.

3. What a federal pardon does not do in state court

Even where a person receives a presidential pardon for federal conduct, state courts can still prosecute related state offenses and in many instances may consider the pardoned conduct for sentencing enhancements or other purposes; a pardon “is in no sense an overturning of a judgment” of another tribunal ^[1]. The Supreme Court and subsequent cases have recognized that pardoned offenses can remain relevant in state proceedings, and legal scholars emphasize that state prosecutions function as an indirect check on federal clemency power ^{[1] [6]}.

4. Immunity, self‑pardon debates and political realities

Questions about presidential immunity or a president’s ability to self‑pardon remain contested in scholarship and politics; some presidents have asserted sweeping authority, but courts and commentators emphasize structural and textual checks — including that pardons cannot cover state crimes or impeachment — and that federal courts can adjudicate disputes about pardons’ reach ^{[7] [9]}. States have reacted politically and legislatively to perceived gaps; for example, New York considered measures to permit state prosecution even if a federal pardon were later granted, signaling an explicit state-level countermeasure to federal clemency strategies ^[7].

5. Practical consequences and strategic use

In practice, presidential pardons can free individuals from federal sentences and remove certain federal disabilities, but they do not guarantee freedom from parallel state charges, civil suits, or public and political consequences; moreover, pardons can carry the stigma of implied guilt unless explicitly framed as innocence ^{[1] [4]}. Because most criminal prosecutions are state-level, governors’ clemency choices — and state statutes about collateral consequences and record-sealing — often matter more for the day‑to‑day legal status of convicted people than federal pardons do ^{[10] [11]}.

Conclusion: a divided map of power and limits

The presidential pardon is potent within the federal system but confined by text, precedent, and the reality of dual sovereignty: it relieves federal penal consequences but cannot erase state convictions or bars to state prosecution, and pardoned conduct can still echo in other legal contexts; where debates remain — self‑pardon, immunity, and political misuse — the constitutional text, the courts, and state responses are the principal arenas for contestation ^{[1] [9] [6]}.