Highlights from the CBS News interview with Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson

As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson walked through the halls of the U.S. Supreme Court, she said, “I am still completely overwhelmed to be in this building.”

In 2022, Jackson was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Joe Biden. In the two years since, the court’s newest and youngest member has become the court’s most avid questioner. She said she hasn’t changed since her days as a district judge. “I have a lot of questions!” she laughed. “I think it’s obviously harder when you’re one of nine than when you’re all alone. And there’s an adjustment period that I think had to happen from my perspective. I didn’t do anything differently. And maybe I should have! But I have questions, and we have a very complicated legal system. And these issues are difficult.”

In her first interview since being confirmed as a Supreme Court nominee, Jackson spoke with CBS Evening News anchor and editor-in-chief Norah O’Donnell about some of the court’s most controversial decisions and her own journey to becoming the first black woman to serve on the nation’s highest court.

Here are some highlights from Jackson’s interview.

On the immunity of the President

One of the most controversial decisions of the Roberts Court during this term was Trump against the United Statesa case that has far-reaching implications for oversight of the head of government and the powers of the Oval Office.

The former president was indicted by a federal grand jury for his efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s election victory. His efforts included spreading knowingly false claims of “election fraud” and leading the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol to prevent the certification of Electoral College ballots.

Trump appealed to the DC District Court to dismiss the charges, arguing that he enjoyed “absolute immunity” from prosecution for actions he took in his capacity as president. The district court denied his motion, and the DC Circuit affirmed the motion. However, on July 1, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that A president may be immune from criminal prosecution for “official acts” taken during her term of office.

Jackson, joining the opposition parties, wrote in her dissent that the opinion by the court’s conservative members “enters new and dangerous territory. The majority has departed from the traditional model of individual responsibility and concocted something entirely different: a model of presidential accountability that creates immunity—an exemption from criminal law—that applies only to the most powerful official of our government. … Ultimately, under the majority’s new paradigm, the president’s immunity from legal liability for murder, assault, theft, fraud, or any other reprehensible and proscribed crime will depend on whether he committed that act in his official capacity, so the answer to the question of immunity will always and inevitably be: It depends.”

Jackson told O’Donnell, “I was concerned about a system that seemed to grant immunity to an individual under certain circumstances, when we have a criminal justice system that normally treats everyone equally.”

When the case was remanded to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, Special Counsel Jack Smith filed additional charges against Trumpby a newly convened grand jury that repeated the four charges in the case but limited the scope of the evidence. Trump accused the special counsel of election interference and demanded that the charges be dropped.

When asked if she was prepared for the results of the 2024 election to end up before the Supreme Court, Jackson replied, “As prepared as one can be! … I think that legal questions arise from the political process. And that’s why the Supreme Court has to be prepared to respond if that should be necessary.”

On ethics at the Supreme Court

The last decade has seen a crisis of confidence in the nation’s highest court – from the partisanship that has characterized the confirmation process to ideologically motivated decisions (such as the repeal Roe v. Wade), to revelations about undisclosed gifts and luxury trips that judges have accepted from wealthy donors.

According to a recent Pew Research poll, less than half of Americans (47%) say they have a favorable opinion of the Supreme Court, while 51% have an unfavorable opinion. The numbers are even more skewed when broken down by party affiliation: 24% of Democrats have a favorable opinion of the court, compared to 73% of Republicans.

Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, faced fierce backlash for failing to disclose millions of dollars. Arrival and accommodation from conservative donors, including billionaire Harlan Crow. (Thomas said he was of the opinion at the time that he did not have to report the trip according to court rules.)

When asked if she thought it was appropriate that Thomas had accepted an estimated $4 million worth of trips and gifts over the past two decades, Jackson replied, “I will not comment on other judges’ interpretation of the rules or their actions.”

Jackson herself admitted that since taking office as judge, she has received gifts worth around $25,000 (including concert tickets from Beyoncé and a flower arrangement from Oprah) as well as an advance of almost $900,000 for her memoirs.

When asked about her personal code of ethics, Jackson said, “I follow the rules, whatever they are, as far as ethical obligations are concerned. And I think it’s important to do that. Basically, it comes down to impartiality. That’s what the rules are about. People have a right to know if you accept gifts as a judge so they can judge whether your opinions are impartial or not.”

President Joe Biden has proposed several reforms for the Supreme Courtfrom term limits to a law requiring judges to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity, and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest.

“A binding code of ethics is pretty much standard for judges,” Jackson said. “So I guess the question is, ‘Is the Supreme Court different?’ And I don’t think I’ve seen a compelling reason why this Court is different than the other courts.”

She said she would support an enforcement mechanism for a Supreme Court code of conduct (the current rules do not provide for one). “I am thinking of supporting it in principle. I will not comment on specific policy proposals. But from my perspective, I have no problem with an enforceable code.”

On the meaning of her name

The title of Jackson’s new memoir, “Lovely One” (out Tuesday from Random House), has special meaning for her – it’s the translation of her name.

“My aunt was in Africa with the Peace Corps when I was born,” she said. “My parents really wanted to honor our heritage and asked her to send them a list of African names.”

Among them: Ketanji Onyika (her middle name), which means Beautiful.

About their persistence

Jackson’s parents, John and Ellery Brown, who grew up in the segregated South, had high hopes for their daughter, whom they raised in a middle-class household in Miami.

“I was born within five years of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act being passed,” she said. “So they said, ‘Here’s our chance to make sure our daughter can do all the things we weren’t allowed to do!’ My parents had raised me to believe that I could do anything I wanted. That’s how I thought of myself.”

She said her parents taught her to persevere: “My mother always said, ‘Have you seen this before? Has anyone ever done this before? If so, then you can do it too.’ And they really instilled that attitude in me – keep going.”

This perseverance was also instilled in her by a favorite poem: “The Ladder of St. Augustine” by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, which teaches the value of hard work: The great men did not reach and maintain the heights by sudden flight, but they laboriously worked their way up at night while their companions slept. “That’s kind of my favorite summary of my attitude toward work,” she said. “I was the person who always worked hard at night.”

She is a natural speaker and was a state champion in public speaking and debate in high school. She aspires to a career as a judge, stating, “I would like to have a job as a judge someday.”

“I had completely forgotten about it because I wanted to be a judge, but there it is, in my high school yearbook!” she laughed.

Jackson, a graduate of Harvard Law School, clerked for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and later as a public defender in federal court. (Jackson is the Supreme Court’s first public defender.)

Asked what it was like to become the first black female justice, Jackson said her story — a story of breaking barriers — was becoming less and less exceptional. “That’s really progress, when you go from something you’ve never seen or done before to someone doing it,” she said. “And then it starts happening more and more. And then you feel like, ‘We’ve made progress. And it’s wonderful!'”

Watch more of Norah O’Donnell’s interview with Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on “From person to person”, Streaming Thursday, September 5 at 8:30 p.m. ET on CBS News 24/7 and Paramount+.

For more information: