When examining the scope of the presidential pardon power, it is important to consider its limitations when it comes to state court convictions. While the president has the authority to grant pardons for federal offenses, the power to pardon state court convictions lies with the governors of each respective state.

The historical basis for this distinction can be traced back to the formation of the United States Constitution. The framers intended for the president to have the power to grant pardons for federal crimes as a check on the judicial branch. This power was seen as a way to correct any potential injustices or mitigate the severity of punishments imposed by federal courts.

However, when it comes to state court convictions, the president's pardon power does not extend to them. This limitation is grounded in the principle of federalism, which recognizes the sovereignty of individual states in their criminal justice systems.

One notable Supreme Court case that addressed this issue is Ex parte Garland (1866). In this case, the Court held that the president's power to grant pardons is limited to offenses against the United States and does not extend to state offenses. The Court stated that the president's pardon power "extends to every offense 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."

Another relevant case is Schick v. Reed (1974), where the Supreme Court reaffirmed the distinction between federal and state offenses when it comes to the presidential pardon power. The Court held that the president's power to grant pardons does not extend to state offenses, and governors retain the exclusive authority to grant pardons or commute sentences for state convictions.

It is worth noting that while the president cannot directly pardon state court convictions, there are instances where the president's actions may indirectly impact a state conviction. For example, the president has the power to commute federal sentences, which could potentially result in a reduction of a sentence that was imposed for a federal offense related to a state court conviction.

In conclusion, the presidential pardon power is limited when it comes to state court convictions. While the president has the authority to grant pardons for federal offenses, the power to pardon state court convictions rests with the governors of each state. Understanding this distinction is crucial in comprehending the legal complexities surrounding the scope of the presidential pardon power.