Justice Jackson Expresses Concerns over Trump Immunity Ruling, Warns of Power Abuse

In an interview with CBS News, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voiced concerns about the court's immunity ruling protecting former President Trump from prosecution. She warned of a potential system where individuals in power could evade accountability for their actions.

## Article:

Justice Jackson Expresses Concerns over Trump Immunity Ruling, Warns of Power Abuse

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has expressed concerns over the majority opinion in the Trump immunity case, arguing that it may provide immunity for individuals in power and undermine the principle of equal treatment under the law. In a recent interview with CBS News' Norah O'Donnell, Jackson shared her dissenting views on the ruling.

"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 Concerns over Trump Immunity Ruling, Warns of Power Abuse

The Supreme 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 dissenting opinion, Jackson criticized the court's decision, writing, "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."

Jackson expressed concern that the ruling could lead to a situation where the president could commit serious crimes while in office without facing prosecution. She cited hypothetical scenarios, such as ordering the assassination of a political rival or organizing a military coup, which would be protected under the court's majority opinion.

Justice Jackson Expresses Concerns over Trump Immunity Ruling, Warns of Power Abuse

O'Donnell noted that Jackson's words sounded like a warning, to which the justice responded, "That was my view of what the court determined."

Chief Justice Roberts, in the majority opinion, emphasized that the president is not above the law but argued that Congress cannot criminalize the president's official acts. However, Jackson and her fellow dissenting justices, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, maintained that the principle of no one being above the law extends to the president and that criminal laws should apply equally to all individuals.

"The majority opinion makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law," the dissenting justices wrote.

They warned that the court's ruling could lead to a situation where the president could use his official powers to commit serious crimes without fear of prosecution. "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 noted that while the president has the authority to remove cabinet members, the question remains whether the president can exercise that authority by committing murder. She argued that the issue is not about the president's removal power but about whether general criminal laws can restrict how the president exercises that authority.

The Supreme Court's immunity ruling has raised concerns among legal experts and the public about the potential for abuse of power. Jackson's dissenting opinion provides a strong critique of the majority's decision and highlights the importance of upholding the principle of equality before the law.