Pardon Me?

Trump suggests he is going to pardon everyone, including himself: "I'm allowed to do a self-pardon ... I don't want to see people that work for me go through years of nonsense" https://t.co/6jcIDRDt8G

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 16, 2026

 Library of Congress:

Whether Presidents may pardon themselves is an unresolved legal question for which there is no judicial precedent. Some federal officials discussed the prospect of a self-pardon during the Nixon, Clinton, and first Trump Administrations;nhowever, no President has issued a self-pardon, and no federal court has directly addressed the matter. Legal scholars and commentators have debated the question and reached differing conclusions. Proponents of the view that the President may pardon himself often emphasize the lack of limitation in the constitutional language, as well as certain historical views and pronouncements of the Supreme Court as to the breadth of the President’s pardon power in general.

By contrast, those asserting that the President lacks the power to pardon himself raise competing textual arguments and suggest that self-pardons could be inconsistent with other constitutional provisions, such as the Article I provision stating that officials convicted in an impeachment trial shall . . . be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to law. A Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel opinion issued shortly before President Nixon’s resignation concluded that the President cannot pardon himself [u]nder the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, and some scholars subsequently have supported this opinion. Even if a President were to pardon himself, there is some debate as to whether a court would issue a definitive ruling on the pardon’s lawfulness given practical considerations and separation-of-powers concerns. Some Members of Congress have introduced constitutional amendments that would preclude self-pardons, but no proposals have been adopted.

I really expect the end of Trump’s term, if not the next two years alone, is going to trigger a series of constitutional amendments to rival the post-Civil War era. A self-pardon would make amending the presidential pardon power a no brainer, but the evidence of “pay to play” pardons would do just as well. Definitively revoking presidential immunity should be another. The 14th amendment revoked Dred Scott and Plessy. The 16th amendment revoked Pollock v Farmer’s Loan and Trust. There’s clear precedent for the authority.

Changing the Court itself? Congress has all the Art. III authority it needs to do that. Maybe we need to bury the “unitary executive” theory, too. Even clarify the authority of the 15th… as long as we’re writing a wish list. (Don’t get too starry eyed. Only 17 amendments have been added after the first 10, though over 11,000 have been formally, and informally, proposed. Such as:

What if we elected the President of the United States by lot—by pulling a ball representing a candidate out of a bowl? A constitutional amendment introduced in Congress in 1846 proposed precisely that.

In 1838, one member of Congress shot another, prompting the introduction of an amendment to the Constitution to deny public office to duelers.

A citizen wrote to Congress in 1963 to advocate for a constitutional amendment to require that Americans “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Anyone who failed in that duty would be sentenced to 20 years of hard labor.

Serious and unserious, IOW. But still, only 17 since 1791. And one repealed another (21 repealed 18), so that’s only 15 still active. Clearly time for a few more, though.)