Court hearing regarding Ezekiel Elliott's legal battle vs. NFL has ended; no decision expected today

UPDATE, 2:03 p.m.: Monday's oral hearing regarding Ezekiel Elliott's legal fight against the NFL has ended. A decision will not be issued today. Here are more updates:

You can listen to the hearing for yourself.

Original story follows

FRISCO -- While Ezekiel Elliott was cleared to play Sunday at AT&T Stadium, his status from that point on is very much up in the air.

The many shifting legal moves in Elliott's legal fight against the NFL in the past month now lead to an oral hearing by the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals at 1 p.m. Monday in New Orleans.

It will play a huge role in if Elliott continues to play or if the NFL can begin to enforce its six-game suspension of Elliott for alleged domestic violence against a former girlfriend, which he denies. Here's what you need to know about what comes next:

What's going on Monday in New Orleans?

The NFL and Elliott/NFL Players Association will present arguments on whether the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Texas had subject matter jurisdiction in Elliott's case. Judge Amos Mazzant of that court issued a preliminary injunction that allows Elliott to play while his case is dealt with. Mazzant criticized the NFL's investigatory and appeal process as unfair to Elliott. The NFL filed a motion for a stay of the injunction. A panel of three judges from the federal appeals court will hear the arguments. Elliott wants the motion denied. The NFL wants the entire case dismissed.

What does this mean?

Legal experts say it's rare for the 5th Circuit to hold an oral hearing on a stay motion. That a hearing is scheduled could be taken as good news for the NFL. The court asked for both sides to turn in briefs on subject matter jurisdiction, which were filed Wednesday evening. The request indicates that the court is focusing on whether Elliott and the NFLPA properly filed their lawsuit on Aug. 31 to vacate the NFL's punishment in the Eastern District of Texas, a court Elliott's side hoped would be favorable. The suit was filed hours after the conclusion of Elliott's appeal hearing with the NFL but before arbitrator Harold Henderson ruled to uphold the league's discipline. The hearing to request a preliminary injunction was held in Sherman on Sept. 5, and Henderson's ruling was issued while the hearing was in process.

Daniel Wallach, a lawyer and sports law expert who has avidly followed the case, has said that Elliott has a strong case for the stay to be denied because of the irreparable harm he would suffer if he served the suspension before the case was resolved. But Wallach said subject matter jurisdiction trumps all.

"Nothing outweighs jurisdiction," Wallach said. "If the court believes there's no jurisdiction, then it's toast."

What could the 5th Circuit do?

It's possible the judges could rule by the end of next week, before Dallas' Week 5 game against the Green Bay Packers. The Cowboys have a bye in Week 6.

The court could deny the stay, which would keep Elliott on the field as other legal fights play out.

The court could grant the stay, which would allow the NFL to enforce the suspension immediately.

The court could grant the stay, vacate the injunction and order Mazzant to dismiss the case, as the NFL as requested, on the grounds that it never should've been heard in the lower court in the Eastern District of Texas in the first place.

If this happens, the whole process will likely start over in the Southern District of New York, where the NFL is headquartered and wants the case. Elliott's team would then likely request a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction from the judge there, which Elliott would need to be granted to remain on the field.

What are the arguments by Elliott and the NFLPA?

-- The union's allegation that the NFL breached the collective bargaining agreement by withholding evidence from the NFLPA and Elliott before the suit was filed gave the district court subject matter jurisdiction. There was nothing else the NFLPA could do but brace for the imminent arbitration decision.

-- Exhaustion of remedies (waiting for the arbitration decision to be issued) is a consideration but not a jurisdictional prerequisite.

-- Waiting for the arbitrator to issue the ruling would have only prolonged Elliott's deprivation of rights, as he faced imminent and irreparable harm.

-- The judge's ruling came after the arbitration decision was made.

-- The courts have recognized the exhaustion principle doesn't relieve them of their duty to step in where there is a dearth of fundamental fairness.

What are the league's arguments?

-- The district court lacked jurisdiction over the premature lawsuit.

-- The Federal Arbitration Act confines federal-court jurisdiction to review of an arbitral award that has been made.

-- The last thing Congress wanted the Labor Management Relations Act to do was allow the legal system to intervene more into ongoing labor disputes.

-- Courts don't allow rulings that happen after the suit was filed to make up for a premature filing. Such an exception would invite every plaintiff to file a place-holder lawsuit, allowing forum shopping like the NFLPA engaged in here.

-- Each day the injunction remains in effect undermines the NFL's bargained-for right to impose swift discipline on players who commit domestic violence.