Justice Department lawyer Eric McArthur argued before the court that the Trump administration believes the 14th Amendment’s grant of citizenship to people born or naturalized in the U.S. “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” applies to people who fall under the “political jurisdiction” of the U.S. rather than its “regulatory jurisdiction.” Judge Michael Hawkins, a Clinton appointee, questioned what the difference between the forms of jurisdiction was in the Trump administration’s view, to which the Justice Department lawyer responded that while “regulatory jurisdiction” is within “political jurisdiction,” the latter form of jurisdiction “goes beyond that.”

“It’s the most encompassing form of jurisdiction that a nation can have over an individual, where you not only have the duty to obey U.S. law while you are present in the country, but it’s the sort of jurisdiction that can get you convicted of treason if you leave the country and go abroad and take up arms against the United States in a foreign theater of war,” McArthur said to the court.

“It’s a sort of jurisdiction that if you are in trouble in a foreign nation, the United States will intervene diplomatically on your behalf to protect you,” he added, citing the Supreme Court precedent.

The DOJ lawyer leaned on deliberations by senators at the time of the 14th Amendment’s approval in the 1860s, but McArthur’s argument was met with skepticism by the judges.

Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell argued the president’s executive order is “unconstitutional and un-American” and claimed Supreme Court precedent in various cases backed up his challenge to the executive order.

Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, grilled Purcell on his claims that the holding by the Supreme Court in the 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark backs up his stance. The landmark decision is the origin of the current legal understanding that 14th Amendment grants citizenship to nearly all babies born in the U.S. regardless of his or her parent’s citizenship.

Both McArthur and Purcell were asked if Trump’s executive order to rewrite the standard for birthright citizenship would be retroactive, something challengers of the order have claimed could be a possibility. McArthur denied that the order would strip citizenship from people who already have it as a result of their U.S. births, declaring it “prospective” and saying it would apply only to babies born 30 days after the effect of the order — if it is allowed to go into effect.

The hearing in the appeals court comes as the Supreme Court is currently weighing a consolidated appeal of the nationwide injunction on the order stemming from this case and two others filed shortly after Trump issued the executive order in January.

During oral arguments last month, the justices on the high court appeared uncertain about how to curb the abuse of nationwide injunctions and did not address the merits of the birthright citizenship order itself.

SUPREME COURT UNCERTAIN ABOUT SOLUTION TO NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION ‘EPIDEMIC’

Both sides told the appeals court Wednesday they should move forward with deciding on the merits of the case without delay but should wait to weigh in on the question of the injunction until after the Supreme Court has issued its ruling.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling by the end of the month.