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 of the reasons for any grant of executive clemency (pardons, commutations, reprieves, or remissions of fines) in the Federal Register and on the White House website on the same day it is granted. It would also require the Department of Justice's Pardon Attorney to prepare a "Justice Impact Statement" — including victim input and law enforcement opinions — whenever a clemency grant is being considered. Additionally, the bill would extend lobbying disclosure requirements to anyone paid to advocate for a specific clemency grant, with registration and reporting required within two days of any such lobbying contact.
Who benefits
Victims of crimes committed by individuals who receive clemency, who would gain a formal right to submit written statements and be notified of potential grants. Members of the public and journalists who would gain access to the President's stated reasoning. Congress, which would receive Justice Impact Statements and biennial compliance reports. Law enforcement agencies whose views on ongoing investigations would be formally solicited. Good-government and transparency advocacy organizations. Competing interests who currently have no formal channel to register opposition to a clemency grant.
Who is hurt
The President, whose unilateral and historically unreviewable clemency power would face new procedural expectations, even if not legally enforceable. Individuals seeking clemency who have retained paid advocates, whose lobbying activity would become publicly disclosed within two days. Lobbyists and law firms specializing in clemency work, who would face new registration burdens and rapid disclosure timelines. Clemency applicants in sensitive situations (e.g., cooperating witnesses, national security cases) whose cases could be exposed by disclosure requirements. The Pardon Attorney's office, which would bear significant new administrative workload.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the pardon power is one of the least transparent and least accountable powers in the federal government, with no existing requirement that presidents explain their decisions to the public or to victims. They contend that high-profile clemency grants in recent administrations — including grants to political associates and donors — have fueled public concern about corruption, and that mandatory disclosure of paid pardon lobbying would deter pay-to-play dynamics. They further argue that victims have a recognized legal interest in criminal proceedings under the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act, and that extending that interest to clemency decisions is a logical and overdue step.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the pardon power is explicitly vested in the President alone under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, and that Congress cannot constitutionally impose procedural mandates on its exercise without infringing on the separation of powers. They contend that requiring a public written justification could chill legitimate uses of clemency — such as correcting unjust sentences or protecting cooperating witnesses — by forcing presidents to expose sensitive deliberations. They further argue that the two-day lobbying disclosure window is impractically short and could deter attorneys from providing legitimate legal advocacy on behalf of clemency applicants, effectively burdening the right to petition the government.