U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recently explained why it is that she joined her conservative colleagues in a major case relating to the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

The justice did so in a recent interview with CNN.

Jackson actually claimed that the reason she joined the conservatives in the case is because, in her view, it was "what the law required."

It is not every day that one hears a liberal Supreme Court justice talking about adhering to the law, which is what makes Jackson's decision in that case - as well as her reason behind it - so surprising to so many.

Background

Just in case you are unfamiliar with the case, we will briefly take a look at it. The case is Fischer v. United States. 

Joseph Fischer, according to Fox News, was one of those individuals who participated in the Capitol protests of Jan. 6, 2021. And, he was prosecuted by the United States government for doing so.

In his defense, however, he argued that the government had overstepped in its prosecution of him, and the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court - including Jackson - agreed. It was a 6-3 decision.

The justices essentially ruled that the government was prosecuting some of these individuals under a law that was never intended to cover the sort of behavior that the government was using it to cover.

According to Fox, Jack, in a concurring opinion, wrote:

In a concurring opinion, Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that despite "the shocking circumstances involved in this case… this Court's task is to determine what conduct is proscribed by the criminal statute that has been invoked as the basis for the obstruction charge at issue here."

Jackson explains

Jackson in her recent interview with CNN explained why it is that she sided with her conservative colleagues in this case. She was prompted to do so after the host asked her whether it was a "hard" decision for her to reach.

"I wouldn't say it was a hard decision, and this is an example, I think, of a difference between law and politics," Jackson began.

She continued, "I ruled, in that case, consistent with what I believe the law required, given the statute at issue, the context in which it was enacted, the text of the statute, and it purposes."

"That's the way that I look at statutory interpretation regardless of what the politics might say about this situation," she concluded.

She definitely got that one right.