Sotomayor hits presidential immunity decision in first public comments since new Trump admin

Supreme Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor opposed the presidential immunity decision last summer on Wednesday, expressing concern about public confidence in the High Court.

In her first official duties since President Trump took office about two weeks ago, Sotomayor was worried that the Supreme Court had fared too far from public sentiment when asked about reducing public trust in the courts. He said he is doing so.

“If we as a court we go far beyond the people, our legitimacy will be questioned,” Sotomayor told an audience in Kentucky on Wednesday evening.

“I think immune cases are one of those situations,” she continued. “I don't think Americans accepted that everyone should surpass American laws. Our equality as people was the foundation of our society and our constitution.”

“I think my court would probably gather more public support if it went a little more slowly by reverting it,” she said.

Last summer, with a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court held that the former president enjoys absolute criminal immunity for certain core functions. Other official acts are entitled to presumed immunity, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

Sotomayor issued it as a stab 30 pages of oppositejoined by fellow liberal judges Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who wrote that “today's decision to grant the former president's impunity will form the presidency.”

“It means that it laughs at the principles underlying our constitution and government systems and does not exceed the law,” she wrote at the time.

She repeated her position at the Wednesday night event.

“Our constitution itself has a provision in place that after a perpetrator, the president will not exempt the president from criminal conduct,” Sotomayor said. “So I struggled with immunity, and if we continue to move in a direction that the public finds difficult to understand, we are putting the courts at risk.”

Sotomayor on Wednesday will question her frequent court reversal of aging legal precedents “creates instability” and “for partisan views as they are doing things for legal analysis.” He said he was worried that he was contributing to the

Sotomayor stressed that she had not accused her “partisan colleagues” and trusted her that she “truly believes in certain ways to see the constitution.”

“And with sincerity they understand that their beliefs will better promote our democracy,” Sotomayor continued. “But whether or not it's true is irrelevant if you're feeling anxious about the changes people are taking place at a pace that people can't absorb.”

The Associated Press contributed.