Ketanji Brown Jackson ‘Concerned’ Presidential Immunity Decision Was Narrowly Tailored to Protect Trump

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed concern this week that the Supreme Court’s decision in the recent presidential immunity case was narrowly tailored specifically to help Donald Trump avoid legal liability for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court’s conservative majority ruled that presidents are immune to criminal prosecution for official acts taken in office and referred the case to a lower court for additional fact finding and analysis.

“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 told CBS Evening News anchor Norah O’Donnell earlier this week, according to a transcript of the interview, which will air on Sunday.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that Trump’s conversations with Attorney General William Barr and other Justice Department officials about alleged voter fraud should be considered part of his official duties and are thus shielded from legal liability.

“Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

“As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today—conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General, and then remand to the lower courts to determine ‘in the first instance’ whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity,” Roberts added.

In her dissent, Jackson expressed fears that “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.”

After the Supreme Court’s ruling, Trump’s lawyers appealed special counsel Jack Smith’s criminal prosecution of the former president for attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election, delaying the case. Smith filed a superseding indictment this week and narrowed his case against Trump.

Jackson is “prepared as anyone can be” to address cases related to the upcoming presidential election, she told CBS.

“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 – if that should be necessary,” she said.