HR-9860-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Dave Min (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would require the President to publish a written explanation for each grant of executive clemency in the Federal Register and on the White House website. It would also require the Pardon Attorney to prepare a "Justice Impact Statement" including victim input and law enforcement views for each clemency action, and would extend federal lobbying disclosure and registration requirements to anyone who lobbies on behalf of a potential pardon or commutation, regardless of income or time spent on the activity.
Who benefits
Crime victims and their advocates, who would gain a formal channel to submit statements and have their views recorded before clemency decisions. Transparency and government-accountability organizations, journalists, and researchers who track pardons. Members of Congress and oversight committees, who would receive impact statements and compliance reports. Law enforcement agencies, whose views on ongoing investigations would be formally solicited.
Who is hurt
Individuals and organizations that lobby on behalf of clemency applicants would face new registration and rapid disclosure deadlines even for minimal, low-paid, or informal advocacy, increasing compliance burdens. The Pardon Attorney's office and Department of Justice staff would bear new administrative workload within tight statutory deadlines. Clemency applicants themselves could face delays if statements or impact reports are not completed before decisions are finalized, and the President's discretion could be constrained by new procedural and public-disclosure requirements.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that pardons have historically been criticized as opaque, sometimes appearing to reward political allies or donors without public explanation, and that requiring written reasons and victim input would increase accountability without eliminating the President's constitutional power to grant clemency. They contend that closing the loophole allowing unregistered "pardon lobbying" — highlighted by past scandals involving payments or favors tied to clemency requests — would deter improper influence and give Congress and the public better tools to detect it.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the pardon power is textually committed to the President alone under Article II, and that Congress imposing mandatory disclosure, victim-notification, and reporting procedures could unconstitutionally burden or delay an core exercise of that authority. They contend that expanding lobbying disclosure to any compensated conversation about a pardon, however brief or informal, sweeps in ordinary legal representation and family advocacy, chilling legitimate efforts to seek clemency for deserving applicants.
Constitutional context
The Pardon Clause of Article II, Section 2 gives the President a power the Supreme Court has long described as essentially unreviewable in its exercise, as recognized in Schick v. Reed (1974) and Ex parte Garland (1866), which held Congress cannot limit or condition the pardon power's substance; this bill's procedural disclosure requirements test the boundary between permissible transparency mandates and impermissible congressional constraint on that power.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain new oversight and information-forcing tools (mandatory reports, disclosure, lobbying registration) over an executive power traditionally exercised with wide discretion, while courts could be asked to decide whether these procedural mandates unconstitutionally burden the President's Article II pardon authority.
Historical precedent
Similar pardon-transparency proposals have been introduced in prior Congresses following controversial clemency grants, though none of these bills has been enacted into law.