Fact check: Can a president pardon someone who has not yet been charged with a crime?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, yes, a president can pardon someone who has not yet been charged with a crime. The evidence shows that presidential pardon power is extraordinarily broad and can be exercised before formal charges are filed.

The Supreme Court has established that a president can issue a pardon for a past crime before the person has been indicted ^[1]. The presidential clemency power, conferred by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, allows the president to grant pardons "at any point after a crime is committed and before, during, or after criminal proceedings have taken place" ^[2]. This power is described as "unlimited" with virtually no oversight or limiting role for Congress ^[2].

Recent precedent supports this interpretation, as President Biden issued pardons for his family members and allies despite them not being charged with any crime ^[3]. The Department of Justice acknowledges that there have been cases where people who had not been charged with a crime were pardoned ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks important constitutional and practical context about the scope and limitations of presidential pardon power:

• Legal scholars express serious concerns about preemptive pardons. Steve Vladeck, a professor of law at Georgetown University, distinguishes between pardons for past crimes (which are constitutional) and pardons for future conduct, calling the latter "a terrifying idea in a constitutional democracy" ^[1].
• Harold Krent, a professor of law, argues that pre-emptive pardons are "especially concerning" because they essentially place someone beyond the reach of prosecutors, juries, and judges ^[5].
• Congressional efforts exist to limit this power. There are proposals for a Constitutional Amendment to clarify and limit the presidential pardon power, suggesting that some lawmakers view the current system as problematic ^[6].
• The distinction between past and future crimes is crucial but often overlooked in public discourse. While pardons for past uncharged crimes are constitutionally accepted, the concept of blanket immunity for future actions raises fundamental rule of law concerns ^[5].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself is neutral and factual, seeking clarification on constitutional law rather than making claims. However, the question could benefit from additional specificity:

• The question doesn't distinguish between pardons for past crimes versus future crimes, which is a critical legal distinction that affects the constitutional analysis ^[1].
• Missing context about the rule of law implications: The question doesn't acknowledge that while such pardons may be legal, they raise "serious rule of law concerns" according to legal experts ^[5].
• No mention of the ongoing constitutional debate: The question doesn't reflect that this power is currently being challenged through proposed constitutional amendments, indicating this is an active area of legal and political controversy ^[6].