In the Perovich v. United States case of 1906, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning presidential pardons. The defendant, Mr. Perovich, was convicted for murder and sentenced to death by hanging in Alaska Territory court. President Theodore Roosevelt commuted his sentence to life imprisonment without consulting or gaining consent from Perovich who later appealed this decision arguing that he preferred execution over life imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that a pardon is not a private act benefiting only an individual but rather it's part of the constitutional scheme where acceptance isn't required for it to be effective. It further stated that when granted, its purpose is public welfare and thus cannot be rejected by any convict because it's not about what they want but what serves justice best according to societal standards. This ruling established precedent regarding executive clemency powers stating clearly that convicts have no right to reject a pardon or commutation from the president as these acts are meant for public good more than personal benefit.

In the dissenting opinion for Perovich v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the President's power to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment without the prisoner's consent was unconstitutional. He contended that such an act constituted double jeopardy and violated due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. According to him, once a person has been convicted and sentenced by a court of competent jurisdiction, only they can seek commutation or pardon; it cannot be imposed upon them against their will. The majority’s decision effectively allowed for re-sentencing by executive order rather than judicial proceeding which he believed undermined constitutional safeguards around criminal sentencing procedures.