Ketanji Brown Jackson Is ‘Prepared’ If 2024 Election Goes To Supreme Court

Supreme Court Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson said in a recorded interview with CBS News that she feels “as prepared as anyone can be” when asked about the possibility that the 2024 presidential election results will be contested and require the high court’s intervention.

It’s a scenario that appears likely, as former President Donald Trump has been hinting for months that he will claim the election was “rigged” if he does not win.

He made the same claims in the wake of his 2020 election loss, sparking lawsuits contesting the election’s results that ultimately found no evidence of widespread fraud. A few made their way to the Supreme Court, which rejected them, although some justices were divided.

Jackson gave a rare interview to CBS Evening News’ Norah O’Donnell, which is set to air in full Tuesday evening, according to a statement from the network previewing their sit-down.

With a laugh, Jackson flipped the script on O’Donnell, saying, “Let me ask you, are you prepared for all of the news cycles that you’re getting as a result of this election?”

“Um, no,” the host replied.

“No, exactly,” Jackson said. “I mean, 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.”

Jackson also offered a brief comment on the Supreme Court’s controversial presidential immunity ruling, issued in July, which said that U.S. presidents enjoy immunity from prosecution for all acts they take as part of their official duties, although the court did not define what those were. Jackson penned a dissent that said the decision “breaks new and dangerous ground.”

O’Donnell read a section to the justice.

“In your dissent, you wrote that, ‘The court 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.’ Sounds like a warning,” she said.

Jackson initially dodged, saying that was simply her view of what the court determined.

“You were concerned about broad immunity?” O’Donnell followed.

“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 replied.

The 6-3 ruling was led by the court’s conservatives, with its three liberals — Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — dissenting.