In the case of Biddle, Warden v. Perovich in 1926, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a presidential pardon was an act of grace and did not require acceptance by the recipient to be effective. The case involved Martin Perovich who had been sentenced to death for murder but his sentence was commuted by President Woodrow Wilson to life imprisonment without his consent. He argued that he preferred execution over life imprisonment and therefore refused to accept the commutation. However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for a unanimous court, stated that "a pardon is not in any sense an agreement between parties" but rather it's "an act of grace proceeding from power entrusted with execution of laws". Therefore, whether accepted or rejected by its beneficiary, once issued it must be carried out.

In the dissenting opinion for Biddle, Warden v. Perovich, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a presidential pardon. He argued that a pardon is not an act of grace from an individual happening to possess power but rather it is part of the constitutional scheme and when granted, it carries authority beyond any question in open court where its validity cannot be contested. Holmes believed that if a prisoner refuses to accept it or insists on his punishment being carried out despite receiving one, he has no legal right to do so because once issued by the President, pardons are irrevocable and must be enforced regardless of whether they're accepted by their recipients or not. The justice also stated that there was no precedent supporting Perovich's claim that he could reject his commutation since all previous cases had involved prisoners who willingly accepted them.