After a lengthy oral argument that lasted for two hours and twenty minutes, the three-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals seems inclined to reinstate a limited gag order in former President Donald Trump's federal election subversion case. However, the judges may consider loosening some restrictions to allow Trump to directly criticize special counsel Jack Smith.

During the hearing, none of the judges expressed support for Trump's assertion that the gag order should be completely abolished, arguing it violated his free speech rights in a "categorically unprecedented" manner. Nevertheless, the judges posed challenging questions to prosecutors, attempting to discern the boundaries of intense campaign rhetoric and its potential impact on undermining a criminal case.

The limited gag order, initially implemented by district Judge Tanya Chutkan, restricts Trump from directly attacking Smith, his team, court staff, or potential trial witnesses. However, Trump is permitted to criticize the Justice Department, assert his innocence, and claim that the case is "politically motivated."

The panel of appellate judges, all appointed by Democrats, expedited the hearing and is expected to deliver a ruling promptly.

In the midst of these proceedings, Trump's attorneys in the Fulton County election subversion case have requested access to certain discovery materials handled by special counsel Jack Smith in the federal case. The attorneys argue that these materials pertain to potential trial witnesses or factual issues raised in the charges against Trump in the indictment.

While Smith has disclosed discovery material to Trump's legal team in the federal case, a protective order prohibits them from sharing it with those involved in the Georgia case.

During Monday's hearing, the judges raised concerns about potential online doxxing targeting jurors due to Trump's speech. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett asked the special counsel's office if there were any preventative measures to safeguard jurors' technology from doxxing, emphasizing the repercussions of Trump's rhetoric on loyalists' behavior and subsequent threats and harassment.

Assistant special counsel Cecil Woods VanDevender stated that he was not aware of any technological tools that could address this issue "at the source."

The potential for online threats against jurors arising from Trump's speech emerged as a recurring topic during the hearing on the gag order. It is likely to factor into the judges' final decision on whether to endorse the restrictions imposed by the lower court.

Appeals court judges Patricia Millett and Cornelia Pillard indicated their consideration of narrowing the existing limited gag order, allowing Trump to publicly criticize special counsel Jack Smith and his team to some extent.

Currently, the gag order prohibits Trump from making public statements specifically targeting Smith or his staff. However, he is permitted to broadly critique the Justice Department, maintain his innocence, and assert that Smith's prosecution is politically motivated.

Judge Pillard expressed that Trump should not be silenced from mentioning Smith, considering that most Americans are already aware of the case within the context of Smith's involvement.

Judge Millett argued that under a gag order, Trump should not be forced to adhere to strict guidelines while facing criticism from others during a theoretical GOP presidential primary debate.

The names of Smith and other prosecutors involved in the case have already become part of the public record, Judge Millett added.

As the judges deliberate over the gag order, an eagerly anticipated decision that could have significant repercussions, the legal battle surrounding Trump's federal election subversion case continues to unfold.