In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court did more than create criminal immunity for presidents. By defining a sacred zone of protection from criminal oversight for core presidential powers articulated in the Constitution, it also vastly expanded the dangers of a future criminal presidency.

Tucked among those core powers, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, is the president’s power to grant “reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States” — a presidential duty he characterized as having “unrivaled gravity and breath.” Roberts’s broad articulation of the pardon power is significant. Without it, a president’s ability to use the powers of the Oval Office to commit crimes with impunity might not work.

The majority’s distinction between official and unofficial acts has triggered broad public debate over how much criminal liability remains for presidents. But coupled with the pardon power, the common-sense answer is that there is none.

Under the decision, official acts get immunity, and unofficial acts do not. So imagine a president who pulls out a pistol from his personal belongings and shoots a person he dislikes. Under the majority’s reasoning, that would be an unofficial act, so he could be prosecuted for murder after leaving office.

No president would be so foolish as to do such a thing. He’d use his official powers to do it instead.

Imagine the same vindictive killing — one that’s concededly motivated by pure personal malice, with no bearing on the broader interests of the American public. This time, rather........

© The Hill