Supreme Court Justice Jackson Says Criticisms of Judges Are ‘Attacks on Our Democracy’

Supreme Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said on May 1 that the recent criticism of the judge was a “attack on our democracy.”

Jackson appears to have made a clear comment on President Donald Trump’s recent criticism of the judge, but she did not specifically mention Trump during her speech, instead talking about “the elephant in the room.”

“The attacks are not random. They seem to be designed to threaten our people who are useful in this critical ability,” Jackson said at the First Circuit Judicial Conference held in Rio Grande, Puerto Rico on May 1.

“Threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy, our system of government, and they risk ultimately undermining our constitution and the rule of law.”

Jackson sat in the High Court in June 2022 after being nominated for President Joe Biden.

Several federal judges said the Trump administration has not complied with various court orders regarding federal spending, the firing of government officials and foreign aid. The administration has denied criticism of a judge who rejected the order and suspended policy lawsuits.

Jackson’s comments followed an official statement from Secretary John Roberts on March 18 after President Trump called for a perpetrator for US District Judge James Boasberg, which was confirmed in 2011 after President Trump was nominated for President Barack Obama.

Boasberg issued an order banning allegations of Venezuelan gang members under the alien enemy law, saying the Trump administration violated those orders. The Trump administration denied that it downplayed the order, saying that several deportation flights had already left US airspace before the first written order was issued.

“For over two centuries, it has been established that each is not an appropriate response to differences in opinion over judicial decisions,” Roberts said in a statement provided to the Epoch Times. “There is a normal appeal review process for that purpose.”

Later that month, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives to Boasberg each.

“We cannot stand up while activist judges who mistakenly believe they have more authority than the officially elected president of the United States, impose their own political agenda on the American people,” Biggs said in a statement on March 31.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is scheduled for May 15 to hear oral debate on a lower court order that hinders Trump’s policy of limiting the birthright citizenship of certain individuals.

Trump’s Executive Order 14160, signed on January 20, stated that “an amendment to Article 14 has never been interpreted as a universal extension of citizenship to all born within the United States.”

In the court’s application, the Justice Department did not ask the Supreme Court to govern the constitutionality of the executive order itself, but allowed the question of birthright citizenship to raise “an important constitutional question with key consequences for securing borders.”

Instead, the department created what is called a “conservative” request to contain compensation for court injunctions within the parties to the suit.

“The parties will litigate heavy questions, but the courts will need to “limit the scope” of multiple preliminary injunctions “which aim to cover everyone in the country.”

National injunctions, also known as non-party or universal injunctions, set policy across the country. Such injunctions issued by judges are controversial as they have become more and more common in recent years.

On April 9, the House passed the bill with 219-213 votes in an attempt to curb the barrage of district court rulings that blocked or delayed Trump’s enforcement actions on multiple fronts.

Lawmaker Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), sponsor of the bill, said on the house floor on April 8 that he would wield the bill’s sponsor Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), on the house floor.

Sam Dorman contributed to this report.