A panel of federal appeals court judges was highly skeptical of arguments Monday by a lawyer for Donald Trump that the former president is being unconstitutionally silenced by a gag order in his criminal election interference case.

The panel grilled Trump’s attorney for more than 75 minutes as it questioned whether Trump was asking to be treated differently than other criminal defendants because of his current status as a 2024 presidential candidate.

One judge snapped at the attorney, Dean Sauer, when he continually resisted answering her hypothetical questions about the order.

“I don’t hear you giving any weigh at all to the interest in a fair trial,” a judge told Sauer at one point after calling his position “elusive.”

Sauer replied that “the showing would have to be extraordinarily compelling” in order to justify restricting Trump’s speech.

Two of the appellate judges, Patricia Millet and Cornelia Pillard, were nominated to their roles by then-President Barack Obama. The third, Bradley Garcia, was nominated by President Joe Biden.

Trump had been slapped with the court-ordered muzzle last month by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who ruled that his statements targeting people involved in the case posed “sufficiently grave threats to the integrity of these proceedings.”

Chutkan’s gag order barred Trump from making public statements targeting his prosecutors and “reasonably foreseeable” witnesses regarding the substance of their testimony.

Special counsel Jack Smith accuses Trump of illegally conspiring to overturn his Electoral College loss to Biden in the 2020 presidential race. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the four-count indictment charging him with crimes including conspiracy to defraud the United States.

Trump’s lawyers promptly appealed Chutkan’s order to the D.C. appeals court, arguing that it violates Trump’s First Amendment right to speak publicly about his legal battles, especially as he runs for president again in 2024.

The appellate judges on Nov. 3 temporarily lifted the gag order while they considered Trump’s request for a longer pause as part of his appeal. They noted that their temporary stay “should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits” of the gag order.

They are not expected to issue a ruling during Monday’s hearing.

Smith’s team has argued that Trump’s statements are intended to intimidate potential witnesses and warned that they could affect the D.C. jury pool for the trial.

After Chutkan temporarily paused the gag order last month, Trump sent statements suggesting that his former chief of staff Mark Meadows, a likely witness, had been coerced by Smith into testifying.

Chutkan, who had paused the gag order in order to weigh Trump’s request for a stay pending appeal, reinstated it in late October.

This is developing news. Please check back for updates.