that wasn’t challanged.
that does not mean it could not have been or that it should not have been.
From the Criminal Law Library blog:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ex Parte Garland (1866) is central to understanding the scope of this power. In this case, the Court unequivocally stated:
“The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. 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.”
This decision established that the presidential pardon power is expansive and is not confined to specific stages of the legal process. The Court also described the power as “plenary,” meaning it is comprehensive and immune from legislative restrictions. Despite its breadth, the power is not absolute. It applies only to federal offenses, leaving state prosecutions beyond the president’s reach. Additionally, the pardon power does not shield individuals from impeachment proceedings, reinforcing the accountability mechanisms within the constitutional framework.