HRES-116-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ)
What it does
This is a simple resolution expressing the House of Representatives' disapproval of pardons granted to individuals who were found guilty of assaulting Capitol Police officers. As a simple resolution, it does not have the force of law, cannot reverse any pardon, and requires no action by the Senate or the President.
Who benefits
Capitol Police officers and their families, who may view the resolution as public acknowledgment of the assaults they experienced. Members of Congress and staff who sought to register formal disapproval of the pardons through official House action. No group gains any material or legal benefit, since the resolution changes no law.
Who is hurt
No group is legally or materially harmed, since the resolution has no binding effect and does not alter the legal status of the pardons or the individuals who received them. Individuals who received the pardons, and those who supported the pardons, may view the resolution as a symbolic rebuke of their position, though it carries no legal consequence.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Capitol Police officers were physically assaulted while defending the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and that pardoning those convicted of these assaults sends a troubling message about accountability for violence against law enforcement. They contend that a formal House resolution allows Congress to go on record defending the officers who were injured and affirming that such conduct should not be excused.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the pardon power is a core, largely unreviewable presidential authority under Article II, and that a resolution condemning its use amounts to a symbolic political statement rather than a substantive check on executive action. They contend that Congress should focus its efforts on binding legislation rather than nonbinding resolutions that have no legal effect and may be seen as inserting the House into matters constitutionally committed to the President.
Constitutional context
The pardon power derives from Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, which the Supreme Court has long held is essentially unreviewable by the other branches, as reaffirmed in cases like Schick v. Reed (1974); this resolution does not alter that power but simply expresses the House's disapproval of its use.
Checks and balances
The resolution does not shift any formal authority between branches; it is a nonbinding expression of legislative opinion that leaves the President's constitutional pardon power fully intact and unreviewable.
Historical precedent
Congress has periodically passed nonbinding resolutions expressing disapproval of executive actions, including past pardons, though such resolutions have no legal effect on the underlying action.