Yesterday, Donald Trump received a less-than-warm reception from the three-judge federal appeals court panel tasked with deciding whether the former president should receive immunity from criminal election-subversion charges.

“I think it’s paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal law,” said Judge Karen Henderson, appointed by a Republican president. The other two judges were appointed by President Joe Biden, and seem similarly unconvinced by Trump’s argument; the only outstanding question that remains is what reasoning the judges will decide on when rejecting his claim. Per Politico, they’re weighing whether to “issue a blanket decision simply rejecting the notion that former presidents enjoy any immunity from criminal prosecution—an outcome favored by [special counsel Jack] Smith and his team—or a narrower ruling that focused on the specifics of Smith’s charges against Trump.”

[Bet on the narrower version, and not just because courts almost always opt for the narrowest possible decisions. While Trump’s attorneys got derided for their responses to the typically Socratic reductio ad absurdums raised in oral arguments, they likely scored points with the judges on the risks of criminalizing official acts and condemning every president to partisan prosecutions at the end of their terms. The courts don’t necessarily have to rule on presidential immunity in toto — they could easily rule that the actions of Trump on January 6 weren’t in fact part of his official duties as president but as a candidate for the office. Either way, based on the commentary from the judges in the hearing, Wolfe’s likely correct about the general direction of this appeal. — Ed]