And now, in Supreme Court commentary you didn't think you needed (and don't need), here is an utterly pedantic response to the Chief Justices's highlighted parenthetical in Trump v. Vance today.

"Yes, misdemeanor," but also not really. Let me say more.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf

The second charge in Burr was a violation of the Neutrality Act. Following George Washington's advice not to get embroiled in foreign wars, Congress passed the Neutrality Act of 1794 making it a crime for people to do that. It's still around today at 18 USC § 960.

Then, as now, a violation of the Neutrality Act was punishable by up to 3 years in jail. Under the current U.S. Code, that makes it a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(5). A low-level felony, Type E, but still a felony.

Why did Chief Justice Roberts say that the violation was a misdemeanor? Because the original 1794 statute, saying the punishment was up to thee years, called the offense a "high misdemeanor."

The term "high misdemeanor" is an English law term that is no longer used, but the sources I've found suggest it was intended as a more serious crime than just a routine misdemeanor. See, for example, https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misdemeanor-word-history-not-always-a-crime

At the Burr trial, the Neutrality Act charges against Burr were routinely described as "the misdemeanor," and the statute itself says it's a "high misdemeanor," so the Chief is right based on usage at the time. But today we would call that offense a felony.

/endpedantry