Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson detailed her concern over the Supreme Court’s ruling in July 2023 that former presidents can never be prosecuted for actions related to their core powers; Jackson suggested that the ruling allows Trump special protection in a new interview with CBS Evening News.
Justice Jackson told CBS Evening News anchor and managing editor Norah O’Donnell that she had concerns that the ruling was a net negative for the criminal justice system.
“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 said.
According to the SCOTUS Blog, Justice Jackson’s public comments are not that much different from the minority dissent, which was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, in the Trump v United States case, which spelled out their grave concern with the majority’s ruling in the case. In their dissent, they warned that if a future president “misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.”
Jackson
also authored a separate dissent, which, like Sotomayor’s separate dissent, did not respectfully disagree with the majority’s opinion, a sign that the break between Jackson, Sotomayor, and the conservatives on the court regarding this issue is deep.Jackson opened her dissent by calling the Court’s decision a paradigm shift.
“I write separately to explain, as succinctly as I can, the theoretical nuts and bolts of what, exactly, the majority has done today to alter the paradigm of accountability for Presidents of the United States. I also address what that paradigm shift means for our Nation moving forward.”
Jackson continued, “Departing from the traditional model of individual accountability, the majority has concocted something entirely different: a Presidential accountability model that creates immunity—an exemption from criminal law—applicable only to the most powerful official in our Government.”
As Jackson warned in her dissent, “If the structural consequences of today’s paradigm shift mark a step in the wrong direction, then the practical consequences are a five-alarm fire that threatens to consume democratic self-governance and the normal operations of our Government…Having now cast the shadow of doubt over when—if ever—a former President will be subject to criminal liability for any criminal conduct he engages in while on duty, the majority incentivizes all future Presidents to cross the line of criminality while in office, knowing that unless they act “manifestly or palpably beyond [their] authority,” they will be presumed above prosecution and punishment alike.”
RELATED CONTENT: WTH? Supreme Court Grants Presidential Immunity To Convicted Felon Donald Trump In Landmark Ruling