The Washington Post editorial following yesterday’s argument takes essentially the same position as I advocated in my comment last night. First, the Court could adopt a “reasonableness” test to determine whether or not a president’s official acts are immune from criminal prosecution: “Judges could examine whether the president reasonably should have known a given action was illegal — because of contrary advice from his attorney general, for example, or because it’s just that obvious.” Second, the Court itself could apply that reasonableness test to the allegations in the indictment, without need for additional proceedings, to conclude that objectively no reasonable president would have done what Trump allegedly did: “The Supreme Court … could simply find that actions described in Mr. Trump’s indictment lie outside any plausible scope of presidential immunity.”

Let’s hope that at least five Justices have the wisdom to see the case this way.