Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit the pardon power of the President.

Bill Number

H.J.Res. 135

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Government Operations and Politics

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-12-18: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Last Updated

2026-07-10T08:06:14Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

This joint resolution (H.J. Res. 135) proposes a constitutional amendment to restrict the President's authority to grant reprieves (temporary delays in punishment) or pardons (forgiveness of federal crimes). It aims to introduce congressional oversight to prevent unchecked use of this power, ensuring greater accountability in the executive branch.

Key Provisions

The proposed amendment includes the following sections:

• Section 1: The President must notify the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives within 3 days of granting a reprieve or pardon. Congress can then introduce a bill to nullify it within 30 days. If introduced, Congress has 60 days to pass the bill with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate. If no such bill passes, the reprieve or pardon takes effect 90 days after the President's notification.

• Section 2: Any bill to nullify a reprieve or pardon, if supported by signatures from at least 20 House Representatives or 5 Senators, must receive a vote in Congress.

• Section 3: Failure by the President to notify Congress within 3 days renders the reprieve or pardon invalid and without legal effect.

• Section 4: The President cannot grant a reprieve or pardon for any federal offense that Congress has previously nullified through this process.

• Section 5: Congress has the authority to pass laws to enforce the amendment's rules.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

Under the current U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 2), the President has broad, unilateral power to issue reprieves and pardons for federal offenses without any required notification or approval from other branches of government. This amendment would fundamentally alter that by:

• Requiring immediate congressional notification.
• Allowing Congress to override (nullify) the action with a supermajority vote.
• Imposing time limits and consequences for non-compliance, shifting some control from the executive to the legislative branch.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: The Department of Justice and executive branch officials involved in processing pardons would face new procedural hurdles, potentially delaying or preventing certain clemency actions. Congress would need to allocate resources for reviewing and voting on nullification bills.

• On Citizens: Federal offenders seeking pardons (e.g., for crimes like tax evasion or drug offenses) might experience more uncertainty and reduced chances of relief, as congressional intervention could block clemency. This could promote fairness in the justice system by curbing potential abuses but might also politicize individual cases.

• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it could affect high-profile cases involving foreign policy (e.g., pardons for espionage or international crimes), potentially influencing diplomatic negotiations if congressional nullification occurs.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• The President and Executive Branch: Loses some autonomy in clemency decisions, requiring coordination with Congress.
• Congress (House and Senate): Gains a new role in reviewing and potentially overriding presidential actions, affecting lawmakers' workloads and political dynamics.
• Federal Offenders and Justice System Participants: Individuals convicted of federal crimes, their families, victims, and legal advocates (e.g., prosecutors, defense attorneys) could see changes in pardon outcomes.
• The Public and Advocacy Groups: Civil rights organizations, criminal justice reform advocates, and watchdog groups monitoring executive power would be directly involved in debates over implementation.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal and Constitutional: As a constitutional amendment, it would require approval by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures, a high bar that could take years or fail entirely. It introduces a check on executive power, enhancing the separation of powers doctrine, but raises questions about potential conflicts with the original intent of Article II (unfettered pardon authority, except in impeachment cases).

• Political: This could lead to partisan battles, with nullification votes becoming tools for political scoring (e.g., blocking pardons seen as self-serving). It might deter controversial pardons but could also encourage rushed notifications or legal challenges in courts over enforcement. Overall, it promotes legislative accountability without fully eliminating the pardon power.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Olszewski, Johnny [D-MD-2]

Cosponsors (7)

Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2], Rep. Walkinshaw, James R. [D-VA-11], Rep. Levin, Mike [D-CA-49], Rep. Thanedar, Shri [D-MI-13], Rep. Johnson, Julie [D-TX-32], Rep. Elfreth, Sarah [D-MD-3], Rep. Whitesides, George [D-CA-27]

Recent Actions

• 2025-12-18: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
• 2025-12-18: Introduced in House
• 2025-12-18: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit the pardon power of the President. — issued 2025-12-18 — PDF (3 pages)