Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) joined a group of Democrats on Wednesday to introduce legislation aimed at clarifying the scope of the presidential pardon power, specifically targeting post-presidency conduct. The bill, known as the No One Above the Law Act, seeks to amend the Presidential Pardon Power Act of 1978 to explicitly state that a former president cannot grant pardons for crimes committed after their term of office has ended.
The legislation was introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the House Progressive Caucus, and counters the current legal ambiguity surrounding whether a former president can pardon themselves or their associates for actions taken while in office or shortly after.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive lawmakers argue that the current legal framework allows for 'justice delayed' and 'justice denied' when it comes to high-level officials. They contend that without a specific statutory limit, a former president could theoretically wait until they leave office to pardon themselves and their inner circle, escaping accountability for corruption or criminal activity committed while in power.
Supporters emphasize that the check on executive power is vital for democratic integrity. They point to historical precedents where the pardon power has been used to shield political allies, arguing that Congress must step in to prevent abuse of this authority.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal stated, 'We cannot allow a former president to act as their own judge, jury, and executioner. The Constitution gives the President power, but that power is not absolute, nor should it extend beyond their time in office.'
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative critics argue that the bill is a thinly veiled political attack designed to weaponize the legislative process against a specific former president. They warn that while the current target is a Republican figure, the legal precedent set by limiting the pardon power would be dangerous for future administrations of any political stripe.
Opponents maintain that the Constitution grants the President absolute discretion regarding pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. They argue that Congress does not have the authority to rewrite the Constitution or micromanage the executive branch's judicial functions.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) stated, 'This is a blatant attempt to use the legislative branch to prosecute a political opponent. If we allow Congress to redefine the pardon power, we open the door for future presidents to be targeted by partisan investigations the moment they leave office.'
What the Numbers Show
The bill currently has 12 co-sponsors in the House, including seven Republicans and five Democrats. The introduction comes as public opinion on the pardon power remains divided, with recent polling indicating that 48% of American voters support restricting post-presidency pardons, while 51% oppose such a restriction.
Legal experts note that no court has definitively ruled on whether a post-presidency pardon is valid. The Supreme Court has generally upheld the broad scope of the pardon power but has never addressed a scenario involving a former president pardoning themselves for actions taken while in office.
The Congressional Research Service reports that presidents have issued 20,000 pardons and 222 commutations since 1900, with a significant portion coming near the end of a term. This data points to the strategic use of the pardon power as a way to secure a political legacy or shield allies before leaving office.
The Bottom Line
While the bill is unlikely to become law before the upcoming November elections, its introduction marks a significant shift in the debate over executive accountability. It highlights a growing bipartisan frustration with the lingering legal and political consequences of high-level office holders. The next major development to watch will be a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee, where the bill is expected to face opposition from Republican leadership.