A joint resolution goes through the same process as a bill and carries the same legal
force once signed. One exception: a joint resolution proposing a constitutional
amendment is not presented to the President — it needs a two-thirds vote in
both chambers and then ratification by three-quarters of the states.
Bill vs. resolution, explained →
Summary
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to limit the President's pardon power under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. The amendment consists of two sections. Section 1 delineates six specific categories of pardons that the President would be prohibited from granting: (1) self-pardons; (2) pardons for the President's immediate family members up to third-degree relatives and their spouses; (3) pardons for current or former members of the President's administration; (4) pardons for individuals who worked as paid employees on the President's presidential campaign; (5) pardons for offenses motivated by a direct and significant personal or pecuniary interest of the aforementioned individuals; and (6) pardons for offenses carried out at the direction of or in coordination with the President. Additionally, Section 1 includes a provision stating that any pardon issued for a corrupt purpose shall be invalid. Section 2 grants Congress the authority to enforce this amendment through appropriate legislation. As a constitutional amendment, this joint resolution requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate to be submitted to the states. It would then need ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths (38) of the 50 states to become part of the Constitution. The resolution was introduced in the House on January 9, 2025, by Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee, along with Representatives Hank Johnson of Georgia and Mike Levin of California, and was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The proposed limitations aim to prevent abuses of the pardon power, particularly self-dealing, conflicts of interest, and pardons used to shield associates from accountability for actions benefiting the President personally or politically. Supporters argue it reinforces the principle that no one, including the President, is above the law, while critics contend it unduly restricts a core executive authority established by the Founding Fathers and could hinder legitimate uses of the pardon power, such as correcting judicial injustices or granting mercy in deserving cases. The debate centers on balancing executive authority with accountability and preventing potential corruption.
Ask This Bill
Ask a specific question about this bill’s actual text — answers cite the section they come from.
+Strongly reinforces democratic norms and accountability by preventing the president from using the pardon power as a tool for self-preservation or to shield corrupt allies.
+Directly addresses concerns about presidential misconduct and conflicts of interest, particularly following recent controversies involving pardons for political associates and family members.
+Promotes equal justice under the law by ensuring that no individual, especially those close to power, can receive preferential treatment through executive clemency.
+Provides a clear constitutional guardrail against authoritarian tendencies, reinforcing the system of checks and balances essential to a healthy republic.
+Empowers Congress to enforce the amendment through legislation, allowing for adaptive responses to evolving challenges related to pardon abuses.
MIGHT OPPOSE
−May be too narrow in its focus, failing to address other potential abuses of the pardon power, such as mass pardons for ideological reasons or pardons that undermine civil rights enforcement.
−Risks creating uncertainty around legitimate pardons, as determining motive or coordination could become highly subjective and politicized in practice.
−Could inadvertently hinder a president's ability to grant pardons in compassionate cases involving administration officials or campaign workers who made honest mistakes.
−Represents a significant constitutional change that may be difficult to achieve given the high thresholds for amendment, potentially diverting energy from other pressing democratic reforms.
−Some legal scholars argue that Congress already has implicit authority to check pardon abuses through oversight and legislation, making a constitutional amendment unnecessary.
Republicans
MIGHT SUPPORT
+Reinforces accountability by preventing presidents from pardoning themselves or close associates for personal gain, which aligns with Republican principles of rule of law and preventing abuses of power.
+Protects against potential future abuses by Democratic presidents who might use the pardon power to shield political allies or family members from legal consequences.
+Maintains the integrity of federal law enforcement by limiting pardons that could obstruct justice or reward criminal conduct tied to the administration.
+Provides a clear, enumerated restriction that prevents subjective interpretations of what constitutes a corrupt pardon, offering legal certainty.
+Aligns with historical Republican concerns about executive overreach, particularly following controversial pardons by past presidents of both parties.
MIGHT OPPOSE
−Unnecessarily restricts a constitutional executive power that has been exercised judiciously by presidents throughout history to show mercy and correct judicial errors.
−Could prevent a president from granting pardons to deserving individuals who happen to fall within the prohibited categories, such as a family member wrongfully convicted or a former administration official who served honorably.
−Oversteps by attempting to define corrupt purposes too broadly, potentially infringing on the president's inherent authority to exercise clemency based on personal judgment.
−Creates potential legal confusion and litigation over what constitutes a 'direct and significant personal or pecuniary interest' or 'coordination' with the president, leading to judicial entanglement.
−Undermines the framers' intent of a unitary executive with broad pardon authority, which serves as a check on the judiciary and a tool for national reconciliation.
![Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]](https://www.congress.gov/img/member/c001068_200.jpg)