S-256-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Sponsored by Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
What it does
This bill would require the President to publish a written explanation for every 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" documenting victim outreach and law enforcement input for each clemency grant, and would amend federal lobbying disclosure law to require rapid registration and reporting of lobbying contacts made to influence pardons or commutations.
Who benefits
Crime victims and their advocates, who would gain a formal channel to submit statements and have their views documented; transparency and government-accountability organizations; journalists and researchers seeking to track clemency lobbying; law enforcement agencies, who would be consulted on pending clemency actions.
Who is hurt
The President and White House staff, who would face new administrative and disclosure burdens on a core Article II power; individuals seeking clemency, who may experience delays while impact statements are prepared; lobbyists and advocacy groups working on pardon requests, who would face new registration and rapid-reporting deadlines; the Pardon Attorney's office, which would need additional staff and resources to meet 30-day and ongoing reporting deadlines.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that pardons have historically been granted with little public explanation, fueling perceptions of favoritism or corruption, and that requiring written reasons and victim input would increase accountability without limiting the President's constitutional power to grant clemency. They contend that closing the current lobbying-disclosure loophole for pardon-related contacts—which are not currently treated as covered lobbying activity—would let the public see who is seeking pardons and why, similar to disclosure already required for other lobbying.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the pardon power is one of the President's most unfettered constitutional authorities, and that mandatory public justifications or process requirements could be read as an attempt by Congress to condition or constrain an act the Constitution vests solely in the Executive. They contend that new disclosure and reporting deadlines on clemency-related lobbying, and required law enforcement consultation, could chill legitimate advocacy for clemency and slow down time-sensitive pardons, such as those needed to prevent an imminent execution or release.
Constitutional context
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 vests the pardon power exclusively in the President, and the Supreme Court has long held (Schick v. Reed, 1974; Ex parte Grossman, 1925) that this authority is largely immune from congressional limitation, though disclosure and reporting mandates are a lighter touch than substantive restrictions on who may be pardoned or when.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain an oversight tool by mandating transparency and reporting on an executive power, but the President retains full authority to grant or deny clemency and could argue that especially onerous procedural mandates infringe on the pardon power's constitutional independence.
Historical precedent
No prior federal statute has directly regulated the process or disclosure requirements for presidential pardons in this manner, though periodic congressional proposals following controversial pardons (e.g., after the Nixon and Clinton-era pardons) have raised similar transparency ideas without enactment.