Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has voiced her worries about the majority opinion's decision in the Trump immunity case, highlighting concerns about a system that appears to favor individuals under certain circumstances.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, nominated by President Biden in 2022, has raised concerns regarding the recent immunity ruling for former President Trump. In an interview with CBS News' Norah O'Donnell, Jackson expressed her apprehension about the system's implications and the potential for immunity to be extended to the highest office in the land.
"I was concerned about a system that appeared to provide immunity for one individual under one set of circumstances, when we have a criminal justice system that had ordinarily treated everyone the same," Jackson stated.
Justice Jackson Expresses Concern Over Trump Immunity Ruling
Her dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court's immunity decision underscores her concern. The court ruled in July that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts.
In her dissent, Jackson wrote, "The court has now declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the United States can (under circumstances yet to be fully determined) become a law unto himself."
Justice Jackson Expresses Concern Over Trump Immunity Ruling
Jackson's comments during the interview echoed her dissenting opinion, emphasizing that the ruling raised significant concerns about the potential for abuse of power and the erosion of the principle that no one is above the law.
O'Donnell observed that Jackson's words conveyed a sense of warning, to which Jackson responded, "That was my view of what the court determined."
Justice Jackson Expresses Concern Over Trump Immunity Ruling
Despite her concerns, Jackson acknowledged the Supreme Court's responsibility to respond to legal issues arising from the political process. She expressed confidence in the court's preparedness to address any potential challenges related to the 2024 election.
"I think there are legal issues that arise out of the political process, and so the Supreme Court has to be prepared to respond if that should be necessary," she said.
Jackson, along with Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, presented hypothetical scenarios in their dissenting opinion to illustrate the potential implications of the majority opinion's ruling. They argued that the ruling effectively exempted the President from criminal prosecution for virtually any action taken during their tenure, regardless of its gravity.
"The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution," Sotomayor wrote.
Jackson emphasized that while the President may possess exclusive removal power over cabinet members, the question at hand was whether such power extended to criminal acts.
"Put another way, the issue here is not whether the President has exclusive removal power, but whether a generally applicable criminal law prohibiting murder can restrict how the President exercises that authority," she added.
Fox News' Brianna Herlihy contributed to this report.
