What a pardon does not cover is fixed by the Constitution’s own words and a short line of Supreme Court cases: state crimes, civil lawsuits, impeachment, crimes not yet committed, money already paid into the Treasury, and a pardoned person’s duty to testify about the pardoned offense. Most other federal offenses are within reach of a president’s grant, though a few edge questions remain open. The list below states general rules. It is not a judgment about anyone who has received a pardon; Giuliani and others covered by the 2025 election pardon have denied wrongdoing.
Where it stands: Two of Trump’s most prominent grants — the January 20, 2025 proclamation on the Capitol riot and the November 2025 pardon of Rudy Giuliani and other 2020 election allies — are both limited to federal offenses by their nature. Each grant is logged on our pardon tracker.
What a pardon does not cover, according to the Constitution
Two exclusions are written into Article II itself. The president may grant “Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
The annotated Constitution that CRS publishes for Congress spells out the first limit: “state criminal offenses and federal or state civil claims are not covered.” It cites Ex parte Grossman (1925), which read the phrase as meant to distinguish federal offenses from “offenses against the states.”
The second limit is just as plain. Clemency “cannot be used” in impeachment cases, so a pardon cannot halt a House impeachment or a Senate trial. The impeachment clause also says a convicted official remains “liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law” — a reminder that removal and criminal cases run on separate tracks.
| Not covered | Authority | What it means in practice |
|---|---|---|
| State crimes | Art. II text; Grossman (1925) | State prosecutors act under state law |
| Civil claims | Constitution Annotated | Private suits and civil penalties continue |
| Impeachment | Art. II text | House and Senate proceedings unaffected |
| Future crimes | Constitution Annotated, reading Garland (1866) | Only conduct already committed |
| Money paid into the Treasury; rights vested in others | Knote (1877) | Refunds need an act of Congress |
| Civil contempt of court | Grossman (1925) | Coercive orders to comply survive |
| Testimony about the pardoned offense | Brown v. Walker (1896) | Fifth Amendment claim falls away for that offense |
| Professional discipline; the court record | CRS (2020) | Bar sanctions possible; record not erased automatically |
Does a pardon stop civil lawsuits or return money?
No on both counts. Civil claims sit outside the clause, so a lawsuit seeking damages for the same events can go forward after a pardon.
Money is the subject of Knote v. United States (1877). The Court said a pardon “does not make amends for the past.” It held that rights “vested in others” by a judgment stay put, and that without an act of Congress the president cannot return forfeiture proceeds “which have been paid into the treasury of the United States.”
Grossman drew a line inside contempt of court. Criminal contempt can be pardoned, but “For civil contempts, the punishment is remedial and for the benefit of the complainant, and a pardon cannot stop it.” Civil contempt is a sanction designed to make a party obey a court order, for the benefit of the other side in the case.
The Congressional Research Service adds two more practical limits. Recipients “may, for example, still be subject to censure under professional rules of conduct,” and “courts have held that a pardon does not automatically expunge the record of the conviction itself.”
Can someone who has been pardoned refuse to testify?
Not about the pardoned federal offense. The Fifth Amendment protects people from being forced to incriminate themselves; once a pardon removes the federal risk, the reason for the privilege is gone for that offense.
The Supreme Court said so in Brown v. Walker (1896): “if the witness has already received a pardon, he cannot longer set up his privilege, since he stands, with respect to such offense, as if it had never been committed.”
Two caveats matter. A pardon must be accepted: in Burdick v. United States (1915) the Court held that George Burdick, a New York Tribune editor offered a pardon by Woodrow Wilson, could refuse it, and his “right under the Constitution to decline to testify remained to be asserted.” And the privilege can still apply to anything that remains open, such as possible state charges. Our piece on pardoned witnesses before Congress covers how that could play out at hearings.
Does a pardon cover crimes that have not happened yet?
No. Ex parte Garland said the power “may be exercised at any time after its commission” of an offense, including before any charge. The Constitution Annotated reads that as meaning “the President may not preemptively immunize future criminal conduct.”
📨 Get Free Accountability Coverage Alerts
Free · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime
So a pre-emptive pardon can reach past conduct no prosecutor has charged, but not acts that follow it. How far a sweeping, uncharged, multi-year grant can reach has not been tested at the Supreme Court. The Annotated also lists questions the Court has never resolved, including “whether the President may issue a self-pardon or pardon contempt of Congress.”
What exactly do the Jan. 6 and elector pardons cover?
Only federal offenses, and only within their own wording.
The January 2025 proclamation granted “a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021” (a smaller named group received commutations instead). It also directed the Attorney General “to pursue dismissal with prejudice” of pending indictments over the same events.
The November 2025 grant covered, in NPR’s summary of its text, “conduct relating to their efforts to expose voting fraud.” According to ABC News, it states: “This pardon does not apply to the president of the United States.” AP reported that it “applies only to federal crimes” and that none of those named had been charged federally. Giuliani and others “have denied any wrongdoing,” AP said.
The state cases are a separate story. AP reported that Giuliani, Meadows and others had been charged in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin, and that those cases “have repeatedly hit roadblocks or have been dismissed.” The federal pardon did not reach any of them. In Georgia, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee dismissed the case “in its entirety” after Pete Skandalakis, the prosecutor who took the case over, told the court he would not pursue the charges. For the federal side, see what a future DOJ could still pursue.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a presidential pardon cover state charges?
No. The pardon power covers only offenses against the United States. The Constitution Annotated says state criminal offenses are not covered, so a state prosecutor can bring state charges after a federal pardon.
Can you be sued after receiving a pardon?
Yes. Federal and state civil claims are outside the pardon power, so lawsuits over the same conduct can continue. A pardon also cannot stop civil contempt of court, according to Ex parte Grossman (1925).
Does a pardon erase a criminal record?
Not automatically. The Congressional Research Service reports that courts have held a pardon does not by itself expunge the record of a conviction, and recipients can still face professional discipline.
Can a pardon cover a crime before it happens?
No. A pardon can be issued before charges are filed, but only for conduct that has already occurred. The annotated Constitution published by CRS treats acts after the grant as outside it.
Can a pardoned person refuse to testify to Congress?
As to the pardoned federal offense, generally no: under Brown v. Walker (1896) a pardoned witness cannot claim the Fifth Amendment privilege for that offense. The privilege may still apply to matters that remain open, such as possible state charges.
Sources
- The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription — National Archives, text of 1787
- ArtII.S2.C1.3.1 Overview of Pardon Power (Constitution Annotated) — Congressional Research Service, via LII, accessed October 2026
- Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866) — Legal Information Institute (Cornell), 1866 Term
- Knote v. United States, 95 U.S. 149 (1877) — Legal Information Institute (Cornell), 1877
- Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 (1925) — Legal Information Institute (Cornell), March 2, 1925
- Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (1896) — Legal Information Institute (Cornell), March 23, 1896
- Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915) — Legal Information Institute (Cornell), January 25, 1915
- Presidential Pardons: Overview and Selected Legal Issues (R46179) — Congressional Research Service (EveryCRSReport mirror), January 14, 2020
- Granting Pardons and Commutation of Sentences for Certain Offenses Relating to the Events at or Near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021 — The White House, January 20, 2025
- Trump pardons Rudy Giuliani and others who backed efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss — WHYY (Associated Press), November 10, 2025
- Trump issues pardons to allies linked to January 6 — NPR (via WLRN), November 10, 2025
- Trump pardons Rudy Giuliani, others allegedly involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election — ABC News (via ABC7), November 10, 2025
- New prosecutor won’t pursue charges against Trump and others in Georgia election interference case — Anchorage Daily News (Associated Press), November 26, 2025
This article is news reporting and analysis based on the public sources listed above, as they stood on the dates shown. Where officials, lawmakers or analysts disagree, including on whether an action is lawful, their positions are attributed to them; Donald Trump Class Action is not a court and nothing here is legal advice. Facts in a developing story can change.