Questions & Answers

The amendment reads: “No reprieve or pardon shall be valid for any offense committed during the term of office of the President issuing it, or during any term in which that President served as Vice President, whether granted heretofore or hereafter.” This language closes the specific vulnerability of self-protective clemency while preserving the pardon power in all other contexts.

Reprieves and pardons are the two forms of executive clemency granted by Article II of the Constitution, and they differ in what they do to a sentence. A pardon forgives an offense outright — it discharges the legal guilt and any associated penalties. A reprieve only postpones a sentence; it suspends or delays a punishment (most commonly an execution or term of imprisonment) without disturbing the underlying conviction. The Fair Pardons amendment reaches both because both flow from the same constitutional clemency power. If the restriction covered pardons alone, a president could otherwise sidestep it by indefinitely reprieving punishment for self-protective ends rather than formally pardoning the conduct.

A president who previously served as Vice President could otherwise pardon conduct from that earlier period of executive service. Extending the restriction to the Vice Presidency closes that loophole and ensures the amendment cannot be circumvented through a technicality of office.

The phrase “whether granted heretofore or hereafter” makes the restriction both retroactive and prospective — the amendment applies to clemency already issued as well as to clemency issued in the future, preventing a president from acting before ratification to get ahead of the reform. The prohibition is also self-executing: by declaring directly that no covered reprieve or pardon “shall be valid,” the amendment voids any such clemency automatically, without requiring further legislative or judicial action to set it aside.

No. The Ex Post Facto Clause sits in Article I, Section 9; a ratified amendment carries equal constitutional status, and where two provisions touch the same subject the later-in-time controls. The Eleventh Amendment, for instance, was applied to suits already pending against the states without anyone treating it as ex post facto. On the merits, Calder v. Bull (1798) limits the clause to laws that criminalize previously legal conduct, aggravate a crime, increase punishment beyond what existed at the time of the offense, or alter the rules of evidence — none of which the amendment does. The underlying offenses were already crimes and the statutory penalties were already on the books; what changes is the validity of a discretionary executive act of mercy layered on top.

No. Jeopardy attaches when a jury is empaneled and sworn (Crist v. Bretz, 1978) and terminates with acquittal, conviction, or certain dismissals — a pardon does neither. Pre-conviction pardons (like Nixon’s) operate before jeopardy ever attaches, so voiding one simply lets the original prosecution proceed; it isn’t a “second” jeopardy because the first never began. Post-conviction pardons operate after a final disposition; voiding one restores the original sentence without re-litigating the conviction itself.

There is a real reliance interest underneath the doctrinal labels: someone who accepted a pardon and ordered their life around it has a meaningful stake in its finality, even where the formal Ex Post Facto and Double Jeopardy doctrines don’t reach. We weigh that against the institutional harm self-protective pardons cause to the rule of law and to public confidence that no one is above it. The “heretofore” clause is a deliberate choice: without it, a sitting president could race to issue covered pardons in the window before ratification, neutralizing the reform before it ever took effect.

No. The amendment is deliberately narrow. It leaves the full breadth of the pardon power intact for offenses that occurred outside the president’s own time in office. The goal is not to eliminate clemency — it is to insulate it from conflicts of personal interest.

Like any constitutional amendment, it would require passage by a two-thirds supermajority in both chambers of Congress, followed by ratification by three-quarters of the states. We are building the public and legislative case needed to reach that threshold.

Scholars and legislators have raised concerns about self-protective pardons at various points in American history. Fair Pardons is working to translate those concerns into a concrete, actionable amendment backed by a broad coalition of supporters.

Two other constitutional amendments aimed at limiting the presidential pardon power are currently pending in the 119th Congress. Each takes a different structural approach — one enumerates who cannot be pardoned, the other gives Congress a post-hoc override. Fair Pardons is narrower still: rather than listing categories of ineligible recipients or creating a review process, it strips the pardon power of its reach into offenses committed during the granting president’s own term (or earlier Vice Presidency). The questions below describe each proposal and how Fair Pardons differs.

The Supreme Court has long held that the pardon power is granted directly by Article II of the Constitution and cannot be substantively limited by ordinary legislation. In Ex parte Garland (1867), the Court described the power as “not subject to legislative control” and said it “cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions.” Any durable check on the pardon power therefore has to take the form of a constitutional amendment, which requires a two-thirds supermajority in both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states. That is a deliberately high bar, which is why every serious pardon-reform effort — including Fair Pardons’ — is framed as an amendment.

Introduced by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) in January 2025, H.J.Res. 13 is the latest in a series of Cohen-sponsored amendments dating back to 2017. It enumerates categories of people a president could not pardon: themselves; relatives within the third degree; current or former administration officials; paid campaign employees; and anyone whose crime served the president’s direct personal or pecuniary interest or was committed at the president’s direction. It also invalidates any pardon issued for a “corrupt purpose” and empowers Congress to enforce these limits. By contrast, Fair Pardons restricts the pardon power by time rather than by recipient — no pardon may cover offenses committed during the granting president’s own term or their term as Vice President. The two approaches overlap where it matters most, but Fair Pardons’ text is shorter, avoids open-ended phrases like “corrupt purpose,” and applies retroactively.

Introduced by Rep. Johnny Olszewski (D-MD) in December 2025, H.J.Res. 135 would create a congressional override process. The president would have to notify Congress of any pardon within three days; a group of 20 House members and 5 senators could then force a vote, and Congress would have 60 days to nullify the pardon with a two-thirds supermajority in both chambers. Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) joined the measure as its first Republican cosponsor. Fair Pardons takes a different approach: rather than relying on Congress to review pardons after the fact, it removes self-protective pardons from the power itself, so no legislative vote — much less a two-thirds supermajority in both chambers — is required for such a pardon to be invalid. The check is structural rather than procedural.

Support for limiting the pardon power has grown across the political spectrum, driven by pardon controversies spanning multiple administrations and both parties. Rep. Don Bacon’s (R-NE) decision to cosponsor the Pardon Integrity Act in early 2026 marked the first Republican endorsement of a constitutional amendment of this kind in the current Congress. Fair Pardons is explicitly non-partisan: the restriction applies with equal force regardless of which party holds the White House, and the initiative seeks support from lawmakers, scholars, and citizens across the political spectrum.

Fair Pardons is a non-partisan initiative dedicated to ensuring that the power of executive clemency remains a tool for mercy and justice, not a shield for personal or political preservation. We advocate for a constitutional amendment that would prohibit a president from pardoning offenses committed during their own term or their time as Vice President.

No. Fair Pardons is strictly non-partisan. Our focus is on the structural integrity of the constitutional pardon power, a concern that transcends party affiliation. We believe this standard of accountability should apply equally regardless of who holds office.

We are in the process of establishing our formal organizational structure. Updates on our legal status will be posted here as they become available.

The most impactful thing you can do right now is stay informed and spread the word. Sign up for our newsletter, share our materials with your networks, and contact your state and federal representatives to express your support for constitutional accountability.

We welcome volunteers, legal scholars, advocates, and communicators who share our mission. Use our contact form to introduce yourself and describe how you'd like to contribute.

You can subscribe to our newsletter at the Newsletter page, or from the homepage and About page. We send periodic updates on legislative progress, events, and ways to get involved.

Please use our contact form for all press inquiries, interview requests, and academic collaboration. We aim to respond within a few business days.

We are developing a press kit including background materials, key facts, and quotes for attribution. Reach out via the contact page and we will share what is currently available.