- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed alarmed about Trump's ask for sweeping immunity for presidents.
- Jackson wanted to know how future presidents would be disincentivized to commit crimes.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was animated on Thursday when she discussed the potential of what could happen to the presidency if the Supreme Court were to grant presidents the sweeping immunity former President Donald Trump is seeking.
"The most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority could go into office knowing there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes," Jackson said during oral arguments. "I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country."
Trump's lawyer, John Sauer, argued for sweeping absolute immunity for former presidents that would shield Trump from special counsel Jack Smith's prosecution related to efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. As multiple justices outlined during oral arguments, the issues in the case could have major implications for the future of the presidency.
Jackson appeared alarmed that some of her colleagues, especially some of the court's conservatives, seemed more afraid of limiting presidential immunity the court would neuter by the presidency by forcing future leaders to question if a political rival would try to prosecute them after they left office.
Instead, Jackson said there should be at least equal consideration given to the possibility that by granting sweeping immunity, the nation's highest court would give a green light to presidential criminality if a future president could even tangentially tie criminal actions to carrying out the job of leading the nation.
"Presidents from the beginning of time have understood that that's a possibility," Jackson said later of how past leaders understood they could be prosecuted after leaving office. "That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I'm envisioning."
Jackson repeatedly underlined her points when questioning Sauer, underlining how far future presidents could push the envelope. She seemed particularly drawn to a brief filed by Georgetown Law School professor Martin Lederman that outlined how presidents with immunity could commit perjury, destroy or conceal documents, or bribe other public officials.
Jackson's concerns are based on another element of Trump's arguments, which propose that a president could not be charged with a crime unless the law they are accused of violating specifically mentions that it applies to the presidency.
The court's newest justice has considered Trump's conduct and the power of the presidency before. As a Circuit Court judge, Jackson torched the Trump White House for arguing that former White House counsel Don McGahn didn't have to cooperate with Congress' investigation.
"Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded 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 employees of the White House work for the People of the United States, and that they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."