- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed alarmed by Trump’s demand for full immunity for presidents.
- Jackson wanted to know how future presidents would be deterred from committing crimes.
- She expressed concern that it could turn the Oval Office into “the headquarters of criminal activity in this country.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was animated Thursday as she discussed the potential of what could happen to the presidency if the Supreme Court grants presidents the blanket immunity sought by former President Donald Trump.
“The most powerful person in the world with the greatest authority could come into office knowing there would be no potential punishment for committing crimes,” Jackson said during his closing argument. “I’m trying to understand what the deterrent effect is of turning the Oval Office into, you know, the headquarters of criminal activity in this country.”
Trump lawyer John Sauer argued for absolute immunity for former presidents, which would protect Trump from prosecution by special counsel Jack Smith in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election . As several justices pointed out during oral arguments, the issues in this case could have major implications for the future of the presidency.
Jackson seemed alarmed that some of his colleagues, particularly some of the court’s conservatives, seemed more afraid of limiting presidential immunity that the court would neutralize by forcing future leaders to consider whether a political rival would try to sue them after their departure.
Instead, Jackson said at least equal attention should be given to the possibility that by granting full immunity, the nation’s highest court would green-light presidential criminality if a future president could even indirectly link criminal actions to the exercise of his leadership role. the nation.
“Since the beginning of time, presidents have understood that this was a possibility,” Jackson later said of how past leaders understood they could be sued after leaving office. “Maybe that’s what kept this office from turning into the kind of criminal center I envision.”
Jackson repeatedly emphasized his points when questioning Sauer, emphasizing how far future presidents might push the boundaries. She seemed particularly drawn to a brief filed by Martin Lederman, a professor at Georgetown Law School, that described how presidents granted immunity could commit perjury, destroy or conceal documents, or bribe other public officials.
Jackson’s concerns hinge on another element of Trump’s arguments, which propose that a president cannot be charged with a crime unless the law he is accused of violating specifically states that it applies to the presidency.
The court’s new judge has already examined Trump’s conduct and the power of the presidency. As a Circuit Court judge, Jackson torched the Trump White House for arguing that former White House counsel Don McGahn was not required to cooperate with the Congressional investigation.
“Simply put, the main takeaway from the last 250 years of American history is that presidents are not kings,” Jackson wrote in 2019. “Rather, in this land of liberty, it is indisputable that current and former White House employees work for the people of the United States and take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
businessinsider
