The New York Times—still the putative “paper of record”—failed the headline-writing test in its lead story, a hugely important story, Tuesday morning:

Supreme Court Says Trump Has Some Immunity in Election Case

The lead to that Times story is less wishy-washy:

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that former President Donald J. Trump is entitled to substantial immunity from prosecution on charges of trying to overturn the last election, a blockbuster decision in the heat of the 2024 campaign that vastly expanded presidential power.

How did “substantial” become “some” in the headline? And, while I know headlines must be concise, “in election case” seems a whole lot weaker than “trying to overturn the last election.” And it is weaker still than “trying to overturn the last election” and, as might have been added, other potentially criminal acts.

Even the headline atop the paper’s news-analysis piece leaned toward the humdrum, more-of-the-same:

NEWS ANALYSIS

Immunity Ruling Escalates Long Rise of Presidential Power       

Beyond Donald J. Trump, the decision adds to the seemingly one-way ratchet of executive authority.

In other words, based on the wording of this Times headline, the ruling is merely a quantitative change—not a qualitative change or even a vast expansion: placing the president, who had appointed half the justices in the majority, above the law.

The more frightening and more appropriate lead paragraph of that news analysis:

By Charlie Savage

The Supreme Court’s decision to bestow presidents with immunity from prosecution over official actions is an extraordinary expansion of executive power that will reverberate long after Donald J. Trump is gone.

“Extraordinary” is better. But is it strong enough? Perhaps: “unprecedented?” I guess “chilling” would be too much to expect from the Times.

The Washington Post was more direct:

Supreme Court’s Trump immunity ruling poses risk for democracy, experts say

The court’s decision raised fears that a future president will be able to act with impunity because official acts of the president have been deemed off limits from prosecution.

Here’s how Semafor Principals, one of the best of the new, news aggregation sites, handled the story:

Supreme Court hands Trump an immunity win

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Donald Trump — and all presidents — are immune from prosecution for official acts taken while in office. That includes presumptive immunity for pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to subvert the 2020 election results. (Presidents can still be prosecuted for unofficial acts, though it’s unclear what kind of conduct that entails.) The historic decision dramatically expands the powers of the presidency and will further delay Trump’s Jan. 6 election subversion case. The 6-3 ruling came down along ideological lines; Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the ruling “effectively creates a law-free zone around the president.”

Heather Cox Richardson—one of our leading Substackers (a promising and relatively new kind of journalism)—was even clearer and more forceful:

Today the United States Supreme Court overthrew the central premise of American democracy: that no one is above the law. 

It decided that the president of the United States, possibly the most powerful person on earth, has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for crimes committed as part of the official acts at the core of presidential powers. The court also said it should be presumed that the president also has immunity for other official acts as well, unless that prosecution would not intrude on the authority of the executive branch.

We value the Times for its resistance to the hysterical. But there are times—times of great historical significance—that call for considerably more gravity and urgency.