In her initial public remarks since the commencement of President Trump's second term, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed criticism of the Court's 2024 decision regarding presidential immunity. She voiced apprehension that the ruling could jeopardize the Court's credibility. Speaking at an event in Louisville, Kentucky, Justice Sotomayor addressed various inquiries, including public perception of the Supreme Court, as reported by the Associated Press.

Justice Sotomayor argued that if the Court's decisions stray too far from public sentiment, its legitimacy will inevitably be questioned. She specifically cited the presidential immunity case as an example, stating her belief that Americans reject the notion of anyone being above the law. She emphasized that the principle of equality under the law is a cornerstone of both American society and the Constitution.

The 2024 Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States, a 6-3 decision, established that former presidents possess significant immunity from prosecution for actions taken in their official capacity, but not for unofficial acts. This case originated from Special Counsel Jack Smith's federal election interference investigation, in which former President Trump faced charges including conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, authored the dissenting opinion. She argued that the decision undermines the fundamental constitutional principle that no one is above the law. The dissent emphasized the unprecedented nature of a president potentially being shielded from criminal prosecution for abusing the powers of their office. It also warned about the implications of granting such immunity to all future former presidents.

During her Louisville appearance, Justice Sotomayor reiterated her difficulties with the immunity ruling, pointing to constitutional provisions that do not exempt presidents from criminal prosecution after impeachment. She cautioned that if the Court persists on this trajectory, its legitimacy will be imperiled. She also suggested that slowing down the pace of overturning established precedents could help restore public trust in the Court. She cited the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, the elimination of affirmative action in college admissions in 2023, and the striking down of the Chevron doctrine in 2024 as examples of decisions contributing to public perception of instability in the law and potential partisan influence. While acknowledging these perceptions, she refrained from accusing her colleagues of partisan bias.

Justice Sotomayor had previously expressed similar concerns in 2023 following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, which overturned Roe, though she did not explicitly name the case at that time. Despite her concerns, she emphasized the importance of persevering and continuing to advocate for her beliefs.