President Donald Trump's outspoken legal adviser, Rudy Giuliani, made headlines by stating that the President has the power to pardon himself.

Mr Giuliani said that Mr Trump "has no intention of pardoning himself" while asserting that the President's power under the constitution to pardon himself "would be an open question" and that "it would probably get answered by, gosh, that's what the constitution says".

Meanwhile, Mr Trump says while he has committed no wrongdoing, he has the "absolute" power to pardon himself, echoing Mr Giuliani's earlier arguments.

So, are they correct about the President's power to issue pardons under the US constitution?

Loading

The question assumed importance even before Mr Giuliani's remarks on ABC Television in the US.

Last week, Mr Trump pardoned conservative film producer and television personality Dinesh D'Souza and announced it via a tweet. The pardon generated a febrile outpouring of condemnation in the media.

Mr Trump's strongest critics alleged that the pardon is part of a scheme to reassure others that they will also be pardoned as long as they support him. They point to others whom Mr Trump has pardoned, such as Joe Arpaio and Scooter Libby, to bolster their claim that the President's actions are part of a pattern of immunizing people who have obstructed justice and pursued right-wing causes.

It is allegedly part of a grand scheme to interfere with the Russia investigation. Others label it an irregular act in breach of established policies and practices of the Justice Department. Some have even likened Mr Trump to a "mob boss".

Mr Trump, of course, disagrees with these criticisms. He views Mr Arpaio as a person "who kept Arizona safe", Mr D'Souza, as a victim of Barack Obama's "witch hunt", and Mr Libby, as someone who was "treated unfairly".

Presidential pardons consistent with US constitution

So, what's the truth?

Regardless of what we may think of Messrs D'Souza, Libby, and Arpaio, Mr Trump's pardons are perfectly consistent with his powers under the constitution.

Based solely on media outrage, it would seem that the President had unleashed a dangerous criminal who could inflict further harms by pardoning D'Souza.

The truth is anything but. In the annals of offending, Mr D'Souza would not even merit a footnote. His crime was to breach campaign funding limits established by the Federal Election Campaign Act by asking his "assistant and a woman with whom [he] was romantically involved, to make contributions" to the campaign of Wendy Long for a US Senate seat. These illegal donations totalled $20,000.

This offence would likely have not even been prosecuted. Unfortunately, Mr D'Souza had acquired notoriety for his attacks on Barack Obama and was a lightning rod for criticism. Faced with an aggressive prosecutor who was intent on sending him to jail, Mr D'Souza pled guilty. The judge sentenced him to a five-year term of probation and a $30,000 fine.

In his sentencing decision, Judge Berman noted that this was Mr D'Souza's "first offense in an otherwise apparently law-abiding life", and didn't think it "necessary" for Mr D'Souza to go to jail.

Critics also argue that Mr D'Souza's pardon is inappropriate because he has not shown remorse, referencing DOJ guidelines:

"The extent to which a petitioner has accepted responsibility … are important considerations. [He] should be genuinely desirous of forgiveness rather than vindication. … [attempts] to minimize or rationalize culpability does not advance the case for pardon."

This criticism is also without merit. Mr D'Souza did plead guilty and expressed remorse during the sentencing proceedings.

President can pardon for any reason

Finally, the vitriol directed at Mr Trump is wrong for a more basic reason: he has broad constitutional power to pardon.

The pardon power is not limited by any goals that the President's critics deem to be sinister or unusual. He can pardon for any reason.

As the Supreme Court stated in 1866 in the case of Ex Parte Garland, the "constitution provides that the President 'shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment'". This power is vested under Article II Section 2 of the constitution.

In delivering the opinion of the SC, Justice Field stated that the power "conferred is unlimited".

"It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency or after conviction and judgment," Justice Field said.

"This power … is not subject to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders. The benign prerogative of mercy reposed in him cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions."

Justice Field also explained the consequence of a pardon: "It releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that, in the eye of the law, the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence."

Further, "it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity".

Trump has not acted beyond his authority

In the 1974 case of Schick v. Reed, Chief Justice Burger's majority opinion also emphasized the broad power enjoyed by the president. After analysing its history, Justice Burger wrote:

"A fair reading of the history of the English pardoning power, from which our Art. II, 2, cl. 1, derives, of the language of that clause itself, and of the unbroken practice since 1790 compels the conclusion that the power flows from the constitution alone, not from any legislative enactments, and that it cannot be modified, abridged, or diminished by the Congress … The plain purpose of the broad power conferred by 2, cl. 1, was to allow plenary authority in the President to 'forgive' the convicted person in part or entirely, to reduce a penalty in terms of a specified number of years, or to alter it with conditions which are in themselves constitutionally unobjectionable."

It is unsurprising that Dinesh D'Souza's pardon and the manner of its announcement angered those who are hostile to the President's unorthodox methods. Nonetheless, a careful reading of the constitution and the pardons issued by previous presidents suggests that Mr Trump has not acted beyond his authority.

And legally speaking there is nothing preventing him from issuing himself a pardon. Existing Supreme Court precedent doesn't say he can't. There would obviously be a high political price if he did so, although his die-hard supporters may not care.

We may not like these pardons, just as others did not like Mr Clinton's infamous pardon of Marc Rich. But that doesn't make Mr Trump anymore a "mob boss" than Clinton.

Sandeep Gopalan is a professor of law and Pro Vice Chancellor for academic innovation at Deakin University. He previously was co-chairman or vice chairman of American Bar Association committees on aerospace/defence and international transactions, a member of the ABA's immigration commission, and dean of law schools in Ireland and Australia. He is a licensed attorney in the United States, where he has worked as a lawyer and law professor previously.