Can a Person Refuse a Presidential Pardon?

At the end of their term in office, U.S. presidents often issue pardons to people convicted of various offenses. Most recipients are grateful that their crimes are forgiven—but what would happen if the person being offered the pardon declined it altogether? Is such a thing even possible, or does the pardoned individual have no choice in the matter?

Presidential pardons are different from presidential commutations. Speaking with ABC News, Randy Barnett, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, said that “pardon is an ‘executive forgiveness of crime’; commutation is an ‘executive lowering of the penalty.’” And whether a recipient can refuse a pardon depends on that distinction, as seen in three Supreme Court cases examining the issue.

1. United States v. Wilson
2. Burdick v. United States
3. Biddle v. Perovich

United States v. Wilson

George Wilson and co-conspirator James Porter were both sentenced to death on May 27, 1830, after being convicted of robbing a U.S. postal worker and putting the carrier’s life in jeopardy. Porter was executed just over a month later, but President Andrew Jackson decided to pardon Wilson for the death penalty charge on the understanding that he had yet to be sentenced for other crimes (for which he was looking at a minimum of 20 years). For some reason, Wilson waived the pardon, possibly because of confusion about which case he was being tried for at the time and which cases the pardon was for.

The Supreme Court heard the case of the United States v. George Wilson in 1833. It ruled “a pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered, and if it be rejected, we have discovered no power in a court to force it on him.” Whether Wilson was eventually executed has been lost to time.

Burdick v. United States

The right to refuse a pardon was affirmed in 1915. George Burdick, city editor of the New York Tribune, refused to testify regarding sources for articles on alleged customs fraud by invoking his Fifth Amendment rights [PDF]. President Woodrow Wilson then gave a pardon to Burdick, protecting him from any charge with which he might incriminate himself during his testimony. The idea behind the pardon was to force Burdick to testify, under the theory that he could no longer be convicted for any acts he may reveal. But Burdick rejected the pardon because he believed acceptance entailed an implicit admission of guilt. He continued to invoke his rights and was found guilty of contempt.

The Supreme Court ruled in Burdick v. United States that the editor was within his rights to refuse the pardon, and therefore could assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Biddle v. Perovich

Another ruling added a new wrinkle to the pardoning issue. In 1905, Vuco Perovich was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by hanging, which President William Howard Taft commuted to a sentence of life imprisonment a few years later. Perovich was then transferred from Alaska to Washington and later to Leavenworth. Perovich eventually filed an application for writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his commutation was issued without his consent. The Supreme Court ruled in 1927 that “a presidential commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment was held effective without an inmate’s consent,” Fordham University law professor John D. Feerick wrote [PDF].

In the U.S. Constitution Annotated, legal scholars interpret the Perovich ruling as indicating “that by substituting a commutation order for a deed of pardon, a president can always have his way in such matters, provided the substituted penalty is authorized by law and does not in common understanding exceed the original penalty.”

In other words, you may be able to refuse a pardon, but not a commutation.

Discover More Facts About Legal Issues:

A version of this story was published in 2019; it has been updated for 2024.