Which Supreme Court cases have addressed the president's power to pardon state offenses?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Supreme Court has repeatedly treated the presidential pardon power as limited to "offenses against the United States" and therefore not a vehicle to clear state-law crimes; foundational cases cited by courts include Ex parte Grossman (criminal contempts), Ex parte Garland (scope of federal pardons), Carlesi v. New York (state sentencing after federal pardon), and recent doctrinal confirmations such as Gamble’s dual‑sovereignty discussion [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. The constitutional baseline: pardons reach federal, not state, offenses
Article II’s Pardon Clause grants the president power to pardon “offenses against the United States,” and the authoritative congressional and scholarly annotations—and multiple Supreme Court opinions—read that phrase to mean the power covers federal crimes but not state offenses [1] [2]. Legal reference sources repeatedly state that the president cannot pardon purely state-law crimes because those are not “offenses against the United States” [1] [2].
2. Ex parte Garland and the breadth of executive clemency
The Court in Ex parte Garland declared the pardon power broad in scope with respect to federal offenses, holding that clemency can be exercised even before prosecution and that pardons are an act of grace that can reach a wide range of federal wrongdoing [5]. That 19th‑century decision is the touchstone for the proposition that presidential pardons are “plenary” as to federal crimes [5].
3. Ex parte Grossman: contempts and separation-of-powers limits
The Court in Ex parte Grossman held that the president may pardon criminal contempts of a federal court (not civil contempts), illustrating one boundary where the pardon power has been applied to federal contempt sanctions while courts drew a line as to civil contempts and certain penalties imposed by co‑equal departments [1] [2]. Grossman is cited in modern annotations as showing the pardon power operates against federal, not state, authority [1].
4. Carlesi v. New York and the impotence of federal pardons against state consequences
In Carlesi v. New York , the Supreme Court allowed a state to consider a prior federal offense—even if pardoned—when legislatively enhancing a sentence for a state crime, signaling that federal pardons do not automatically erase the fact of a conviction for state-law purposes and that states retain independent sentencing authority [6] [3]. Scholars and civil‑liberties commentators cite Carlesi as reinforcing that the president cannot shield people from state legal consequences [6].
5. Gamble and the dual‑sovereignty reality reiterated
Recent doctrinal treatment—most notably in discussions around Gamble v. United States and subsequent commentary—confirms the dual‑sovereignty principle: states and the federal government are separate sovereigns, so a federal pardon does not bar state prosecution for the same conduct [4]. Practitioners and research guides reference Gamble to show the Court’s modern willingness to maintain the federal/state divide relevant to pardons [4].
6. What the Court has not decided: certain edge questions remain open
Available sources make clear the Court has not resolved every theoretical limit: whether pardons cover contempt of Congress remains an open question in light of Grossman’s focus on courts versus the separate role of Congress, and the self‑pardon question has never been squarely decided by the Supreme Court [1] [7]. Reporting and legal analyses highlight these unresolved issues even while emphasizing the settled rule that state crimes lie outside the Pardon Clause [1] [7].
7. Practical implications and contrasting perspectives
Legal encyclopedias and bar analyses converge: there is a strong consensus among experts that a president cannot pardon state offenses, and courts have repeatedly protected the states’ ability to prosecute and impose penalties independent of federal clemency [8] [6]. Some sources stress the president’s pardon power is “virtually unlimited” within the federal sphere (per Garland) while others emphasize concrete limits—state sovereignty, impeachment, and distinctions between criminal and civil contempts [5] [1] [2].
Limitations of this summary: it relies on the cases and commentary identified in the provided materials; available sources do not mention any Supreme Court decision that allowed a presidential pardon to extinguish a purely state criminal prosecution (not found in current reporting).