Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson says she is open to an “enforceable” code of ethics for the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said in an interview broadcast on Sunday that she was open to suggestions to introduce an “enforceable code of conduct” for judges and regretted the court's decision on presidential immunity.

“A binding code of ethics is pretty standard for judges, and so the question is, 'Is the Supreme Court different?'” Jackson asked in an interview with “CBS News Sunday Morning” about her new memoir, adding: “I don't think I've seen a compelling reason why the [Supreme] Court is different from other courts.”

The issue of ethics at the Supreme Court has come into the public eye in recent years after stories emerged about justices failing to disclose certain generous gifts on their ethics disclosure forms.

For example, Justice Clarence Thomas accepted generous gifts and trips from Republican major donor Harlan Crow. None of this was officially disclosed before ProPublica reported on the trips and Crow last year.

When asked directly about the trips, Jackson said she would not “comment on other judges' interpretation of the rules or their actions.”

President Joe Biden proposed a series of reforms this summer, including calling on Congress to subject the Supreme Court to an enforceable code that would impose the same disclosure rules on gifts, financial transactions and political activities as other federal judges.

Although the proposal included an enforceable code of ethics for the court, Jackson declined to say whether she supports any specific proposal at hand.

“I'm thinking about supporting it in principle. I won't comment on specific policy proposals, but from my perspective I have no problem with an enforceable code,” Jackson said.

She also spoke about a recent Supreme Court case involving presidential immunity from official conduct.

The court ruled in July that former President Donald Trump enjoys immunity in the federal election interference trial for some of his actions as president, but may not have immunity for others.

Jackson dissented in that case, writing that the decision “enters new and dangerous territory.” She told CBS News on Sunday that she was “concerned about a system that appears to grant immunity to an individual under certain circumstances, while we have a criminal justice system that normally treats everyone equally.”

When asked if she was prepared to potentially decide the outcome of the presidential election or resolve any related disputes, Jackson laughed and said she was “as prepared as one can be.”

“I think that legal questions arise from the political process and that the Supreme Court must be prepared to respond if that is necessary,” she added.