Comment: Constitution does not allow Trump to pardon himself

Although it’s not expressly forbiden, the Framers would have seen a self-pardon as obstruction of justice.

By J. Michael Luttig / Special To The Washington Post

In June 2018, in the throes of the special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump, the president claimed in a tweet “the absolute right to PARDON myself,” citing “numerous legal scholars.”

The president was correct that some scholars have reached that conclusion. But those scholars are wrong. The president has no right under the Constitution to pardon himself.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution provides that the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

There is next to nothing from the constitutional convention, state ratification debates or 229 years of Supreme Court decisions that sheds light on whether this language empowers a president to pardon himself for federal crimes.

An acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel tentatively said in August 1974, four days before President Richard Nixon resigned, that there is no power to self-pardon. This opinion, a single conclusory sentence, can hardly be regarded as authority on the subject.

The argument often made for the presidential self-pardon is that the authority is absolute, and that the pardon clause does not expressly prevent self-pardons. The argument often made against self-pardons is that they would be inconsistent with the president’s responsibility in Article II, Section 3 to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Neither of these arguments is sufficient to prove its respective point.

The pardon clause’s language is broad indeed, unambiguously allowing the president to pardon seemingly any other person convicted for any federal criminal offense. But its language does not unambiguously include the president himself. Had the Framers intended to give the president such broad power, we would expect them to have clearly said so. After all, the new nation was in the process of rejecting a monarchical government in favor of a democratic republic.

Instead, the words they chose to confer the pardon power on the president contemplate his granting of reprieves and pardons only to persons other than himself. The word “grant” connotes a gift, bestowal, conferral or transfer by one person to another; not to himself. That would have been the understanding of this word at the time of the Constitution’s drafting, and it is how the term “grant” was understood and is used elsewhere in the Constitution.

At the same time, the “take care” argument against the power to self-pardon merely assumes the very conclusion it reaches: that the pardon clause does not empower the president to pardon himself, and therefore that his self-pardon would be irreconcilable with his responsibility to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. This begs the question just as much as the textual argument made for self-pardons. If the Constitution allows a president to pardon himself, there could be no argument that in pardoning himself the president was not faithfully executing the laws.

So why is it clear that the president lacks the power to pardon himself? There are three reasons. The language of the pardon power itself is ambiguous in the face of a constitutional expectation of clarity if the Framers intended to invest the president with such extraordinary power; a power in the sovereign that was little known to the Framers, if known at all.

Second, the Framers clearly contemplated in the impeachment provisions of the Constitution that the president would not be able to violate the criminal laws with impunity. There, without so much as a hint of a president’s power to avoid criminal liability through self-pardon, they provided that even “in Cases of Impeachment,” for which the president can only be removed and disqualified from holding high federal office, “the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

And last, but not least, a power in the president to pardon himself for any and all crimes against the United States he committed would grievously offend the animating constitutional principle that no man, not even the president, is above and beyond the law.

In contemporary constitutional parlance, the Framers more likely would have regarded a self-pardon not as an act of justice, grace, mercy and forgiveness, as they did presidential pardons of others. They would have viewed a self-pardon as a presidential act more akin to an obstruction of justice for criminal offenses against the United States by a president, the prosecution for which can be brought, at least according to the Justice Department, only after a president leaves office.

The current president, never shy about violating norms, may well be tempted to challenge the Constitution by pardoning himself for any possible crimes he may have committed during his presidency. If he does, he may discover that neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court will allow him to forever escape liability for any crimes he may have committed against the nation he served.

J. Michael Luttig served as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals (1991-2006) and as assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department (1990-1991).

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Monday, July 14

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Authorities search for victims among the rubble near Blue Oak RV park after catastrophic flooding on the Guadalupe River in Kerrville, Texas, on Sunday, July 6, 2025. The half-mile stretch occupied by two campgrounds appears to have been one of the deadliest spots along the Guadalupe River in Central Texas during last week’s flash floods. (Jordan Vonderhaar/The New York Times)
Editorial: Tragic Texas floods can prompt reforms for FEMA

The federal agency has an important support role to play, but Congress must reassess and improve it.

Comment: Midterm messaging fight for working class has begun

And Democrats have a head start thanks to the GOP’s all-in support for cuts to the social safety net.

Saunders: Considering attacks from left, ICE agents must mask

It’s not ideal, but with physical attacks against agents up 700%, the precaution is understandable.

Comment: Superman has been ‘woke’ as far back as Krypton

Conservative critics upset by the movie director’s comments on immigration need to read up on the hero’s origins.

Comment: GOP delayed worst of BBB’s cuts until after midterms

Republicans are counting on low-information voters’ party loyalty over their own financial interests.

Tufekci: Link between flood warnings and people wasn’t there

What might have saved many in Texas was a NWS coordinator position eliminated in the DOGE cuts.

2024 Presidential Election Day Symbolic Elements.
Editorial: Retain Escamilla, Binda on Lynnwood City Council

Escamilla was appointed a year ago. Binda is serving his first term.

A Volunteers of America Western Washington crisis counselor talks with somebody on the phone Thursday, July 28, 2022, in at the VOA Behavioral Health Crisis Call Center in Everett, Washington. (Ryan Berry / The Herald)
Editorial: Dire results will follow end of LGBTQ+ crisis line

The Trump administration will end funding for a 988 line that serves youths in the LGBTQ+ community.

toon
Editorial: Using discourse to get to common ground

A Building Bridges panel discussion heard from lawmakers and students on disagreeing agreeably.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Sunday, July 13

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

FILE — The sun sets over power lines in rural Ward County, Texas on Tuesday, May 20, 2025. Republicans plan to terminate billions of dollars in clean energy tax credits. Experts say that will mean more greenhouse gas emissions and more dangerous heat. (Paul Ratje/The New York Times)
Commentary: Bill will deliver dirtier energy at a higher price

Cuts to clean energy policy in the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ will stifle our energy transition and cost us more.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.