The battle over the definition of "aggrieved," and whether a recount is an acceptable audit of an election continued in Detroit federal court Wednesday in a case that could determine the fate of a ongoing statewide review of presidential ballots in Michigan.

U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith heard arguments from lawyers of Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, the Michigan Republican Party and Attorney General Bill Schuette.

Rather than ruling on the matter in court, Goldsmith said after a recess that he would issue a written opinion later.

The timing on the written opinion was not specific, but it was suggested by court officials that it would come Wednesday. Michigan's Board of State Canvassers is waiting for the U.S. District Court ruling before making a decision on whether the presidential recount in Michigan should continue.

For a full rundown on Wednesday's court proceedings, click here for a recap of live coverage.

The main argument from Stein's attorney, Hayley Horowitz, revolved around the "core constitutional right" in determining the election was won without fraud or mistake.

"So there are two questions that the experts would look at. Scope of any problem and the tilt of any problems. That is what the recount would establish; whether there is reason to believe that something was amiss," Horowitz said. "(A recall is a) mechanism for ensuring there was no fraud in the election process."

On the other side of the fence, John Bursch, a lawyer representing Attorney General Bill Schuette, argued that Stein has no merit as an "aggrieved" party in requesting a recount.

"Stein does not expect to win, that means she is not aggrieved, she just wants to audit the process," Bursch said. "Aggrieved - legal injury - means the result has to change. Legislature could not have been more clear to what aggrieved means.

"When you lose by 2 million votes, it's impossible to allege aggrievement."

After Stein successfully called for an expedited recount, Goldsmith ordered the recount to begin at noon Monday, which it did in Oakland and Ingham counties. Wayne County and others started recounting hundreds of thousands of ballots Tuesday.

As of Wednesday morning, 66 votes had been changed across 10 Michigan counties as result of the recall, per court proceedings.

But the state Court of Appeals late Tuesday found that Stein's recount petition should be rejected. That comes after the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to allow the recount to proceed. In that ruling, the federal court determined Goldsmith's order could be dismissed if state courts ruled the recount to be out of order with state law.

Trump won in Michigan's presidential election over Democrat Hillary Clinton by a margin of 10,704 votes. Stein came in fourth place in Michigan, earning 1.07 percent of the total vote.

"She just wants a recount because she claims that some people were not allowed to vote. There is no purpose to this. The purpose of a recount is to determine if the winner of a election should change," Gordon, representing the Michigan GOP, said "All of the litigation in Michigan that deals with recounts, talks about mistake or fraud or error for the basis of engaging the recount.

"This candidate is not aggrieved in any sense of the word."

Horowitz said that Stein does not believe a recount will result in her coming out as president, but believes it could provide a new winner in the state.

"To clarify, she does not believe this recount will change her ability to come out as the winner. Given the margins, given the sources of fraud in this state, it's quite possible that this recount could provide a new winner," she said during court Wednesday.

As for any potential fraud, the attorney representing the Green Party presidential nominee added that there is no way to know if cyber-attacks or fraud took place without conducting a recount.

Goldsmith then asked Stein's attorneys why they were here now, and not before the election, if they were so concerned about "Michigan's vulnerability and deficiencies before the election?"

"Michigan is essentially keeping its balance in an unlocked shed," Horowitz said. "(It's) hard to imagine what could have been crafted before the election that would have been less burdensome than a recount. Massive undertaking and big costs. A recount is least burdensome, whether before or after election."