Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said on May 1 that recent criticisms of judges are “attacks on our democracy.”
Jackson apparently commented on President Donald Trump’s recent criticisms of some judges, although she did not specifically mention Trump during her speech and instead spoke about “the elephant in the room.”
“The attacks are not random. They seem designed to intimidate those of us who serve in this critical capacity,” Jackson said at the First Circuit Judicial Conference in Rio Grande, Puerto Rico, on May 1.
“The threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy, on our system of government. And they ultimately risk undermining our Constitution and the rule of law.”
Jackson took her seat on the high court in June 2022 after being nominated by President Joe Biden.
Several federal judges have said the Trump administration has not complied with various court orders on federal spending, the firing of government employees, and foreign aid. The administration denies that it disobeyed the orders and has criticized judges who have halted its policy actions, in some cases calling for the judges to be impeached.
Jackson’s comments followed a public statement by Chief Justice John Roberts on March 18 after Trump called for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who was confirmed in 2011 after being nominated by President Barack Obama.
Later that month, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) introduced a resolution in the House to impeach Boasberg.
In the court filings, the Department of Justice did not ask the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the executive order itself, although it acknowledged that the birthright citizenship question raises “important constitutional questions with major ramifications for securing the border.”
Instead, the department made what it called a “modest” request to contain the coverage of court injunctions within the parties in the lawsuits.
“While the parties litigate weighty questions, the Court should ‘restrict the scope’ of multiple preliminary injunctions that ‘purport to cover every person … in the country,’ limiting those injunctions to parties actually within the courts’ power,” it wrote.
Nationwide injunctions, also known as non-party or universal injunctions, set policy for the entire country. Such injunctions issued by judges have become controversial in recent years as they have become increasingly common.
Wielding national injunctions in that way “undermines the system of government,” the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), said on the House floor on April 8.
Sam Dorman contributed to this report.
