Today at 10am ET. Adam Liptak has a preview. One thing I’ll be looking for in the argument, from an election law perspective, is the extent to which the immunity issue focuses more narrowly on the specific context of alleged criminality in this case–Trump’s actions as an incumbent president to subvert the electoral process to give him a second term in office that he did not win according to the applicable rules–or instead focuses more broadly on the issue of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution in general (relating to such issues as the exercise of military authority as commander-in-chief). I continue to believe that much, if not all, of Trump’s conduct in an effort to subvert the electoral process was not even remotely part of his official duties under Article II as president, because Article II–and the rest of the Constitution–give an incumbent president absolutely no role to play in the Electoral College (and related) procedures concerning presidential elections. But whatever analytic route the Court takes to reach the conclusion that an incumbent president is not immune from attempting to steal from the electorate a second term he did not win, the Court ought to reach that conclusion as quickly as possible. As many others have observed recently, including Liz Cheney, this case could end up being one in which justice delayed is justice denied.