How has the Supreme Court ruled on pardon authority over state crimes?

1. Why the Constitution draws a bright line — federal pardons, not state erasures

The text of Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 gives the President power to grant “reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States,” and the Supreme Court’s historic rulings have read that grant as authorizing broad, essentially plenary forgiveness for federal offenses while stopping short of any ability to reach state prosecutions. Scholars and court analyses emphasize Ex parte Garland’s holding that federal executive clemency is expansive, but the same body of law and subsequent practice leave state criminal justice subject to state governors and clemency boards. The Office of the Pardon Attorney’s guidance echoes that federal pardon relief does not affect state convictions, directing individuals to state authorities for state clemency ^{[1] [4] [3]}.

2. Cases that define the limits: Garland, Burdick, and the Court’s reticence on states

The Supreme Court has defended the scope of federal pardon power in early cases such as Ex parte Garland, affirming the President’s capacity to forgive federal criminal liability, and clarified that acceptance matters in Burdick v. United States, which held that a pardon must be accepted to take effect. Those decisions define federal limits and mechanics but do not create authority to nullify state judgments; the Court has repeatedly left state prosecutions untouched by federal clemency doctrine and has not issued a decision granting the President power to pardon state offenses ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

3. Dual sovereignty and contemporary confirmations: states can still prosecute after federal action

Modern doctrine, as reflected in cases like Gamble v. United States, reinforces the dual-sovereignty principle: federal and state governments are separate sovereigns that can prosecute the same conduct under different laws. This means a presidential pardon for a federal offense does not immunize a person from state prosecution, nor does it erase state convictions. Recent analyses and court holdings confirm this separation, and administrative guidance from the Department of Justice continues to treat federal clemency as functionally and legally discrete from state pardons or commutations ^[1].

4. Where the Court has weighed in on clemency procedure but not on cross-sovereign power

The Supreme Court has addressed procedural protections around clemency but not the President’s authority over state crimes. Decisions like Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard and Harbison v. Bell concern due process in clemency procedures and representation in state clemency, respectively, and they illuminate how courts can shape the process without expanding the President’s reach into state courts. Harbison’s recognition of federal funding for state clemency representation demonstrates a federal interest in fair procedures but does not equate to federal power to pardon state offenses ^{[5] [6]}.

5. Practical implications and the political contours of pardon power disputes

Because the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent allocate state-court pardons to governors and state systems, high-profile attempts to use federal clemency or political pressure to influence state outcomes highlight tensions between federal posture and state sovereignty. Commentators and legal offices caution that federal pardons cannot negate state convictions; thus, political actors seeking relief for state offenses must pursue state clemency channels. The distinction creates predictable legal and political friction when federal actors attempt to intervene in state prosecutions, but the judicial record to date preserves the separateness of federal clemency from state criminal judgments ^{[4] [3] [1]}.