Update: Sunday 9:17 p.m.

ARLINGTON - Running back Ezekiel Elliott and the Cowboys are still waiting to hear what a panel of judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decides regarding the NFL's attempt to lift the injunction that is allowing Elliott to play while his six-game suspension is fought in court. The NFL wants Elliott's case dismissed entirely and moved to the Southern District of New York.

Elliott and the NFL Players Association want the NFL's request denied, which would keep Elliott on the field.

The judges heard oral arguments a week ago Monday in New Orleans, and a decision is likely to come this week. The Cowboys have a bye.

Elliott declined to comment after Sunday's loss to the Green Bay Packers.

The NFL announced the suspension Aug. 11 after its year-long investigation found that Elliott caused physical injury to a former girlfriend in three instances. Elliott has denied the findings.

Original story, an inside look at Monday's proceeding, below:

NEW ORLEANS -- Since he turned to the court system in a last-chance attempt to fight a six-game suspension by the NFL, Ezekiel Elliott's 2017 fate has resembled the game of hot potato that he and his Cowboys teammates played with the football after an apparent touchdown in Sunday's loss to the Los Angeles Rams.

His fortunes have bounced from one courtroom argument, legal filing and judge's ruling to the next. And the latest action Monday places his playing status for this season in the hands of a three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a federal appeals courtroom here, representatives for the NFL and for the NFL Players Association and Elliott argued over the league's motion to lift the preliminary injunction that is allowing Elliott to play while his legal fight is waged. The NFL wants Elliott's whole case dismissed; Elliott wants the NFL's effort denied, which would keep him on the field as his case is heard.

Judge Edward C. Prado concluded the hour-long hearing by promising to "try to get back to you as soon as we can."

That's the only official timeline provided for Elliott, who did not make the trip to rain-soaked New Orleans, as the .500 Cowboys begin to prepare for a Week 5 game Sunday with the Green Bay Packers. But the decision could come as early as this week and is expected to be made by next week, when the Cowboys have a bye.

Judges Prado, Jennifer Walker Elrod and James E. Graves engaged in a lively back-and-forth with NFL lawyer Pratik Shah and NFLPA representative Jeffrey Kessler in a session that offered no clear-cut signs as to which side would prevail.

The panel had required both sides to submit briefings last week on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction -- essentially arguing why Elliott's lawsuit to vacate the NFL's discipline was or wasn't properly filed in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Texas on Aug. 31. District Judge Amos Mazzant issued Elliott the preliminary injunction on Sept. 5 in a ruling that criticized the fairness of the NFL's disciplinary process.

The focus of the fight has centered on procedural issues for the last month. The NFL found after a year-long investigation that Elliott committed physical force against a former girlfriend in three incidents. Elliott has denied the findings.

Much of Monday's discussions centered on "exhaustion," or the timing of Elliott's suit and whether he had exhausted all other remedies first. It was entered hours after his NFL appeal hearing concluded but before arbitrator Harold Henderson issued his ruling upholding the NFL's discipline.

Elliott wants the case heard in Texas; the NFL wants it to unfold in the Southern District of New York, where the league is headquartered, where the arbitration took place and where it believes precedent, including an appeals win involving New England quarterback Tom Brady and "Deflategate," will lead it to a victory.

Both sides were subject to intense questioning by the judges on Monday.

When the NFL presented, the judges wondered:

-- Did the NFL undermine its argument on irreparable harm by agreeing to let Elliott play in Week 1 against the New York Giants, no matter which way Mazzant eventually ruled in issuing a preliminary injunction?

-- If the judges were to decide the court had jurisdiction and not order the case dismissed, how would the NFL satisfy the irreparable-harm requirement? Prado noted that Elliott can't get the games back if he were to be suspended now. Graves asked: Can't he just serve the suspension at a later date? Shah contended that the NFL's ability to enforce its discipline system would be at risk and that any suspended player could use the claim as a "manipulative device."

-- The judges also wondered about the information that was given to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. The NFLPA contends he didn't know that lead investigator Kia Roberts felt there wasn't enough evidence to suspend Elliott, in part because the NFL's "Elliott Report" from the investigation didn't ask for her or any of the other investigators' recommendations. The NFL contends that any concerns were included in the report that was authored by Roberts and NFL special counsel Lisa Friel.

"It matters what information was given to the commissioner, doesn't it?" Graves asked.

When asked by Elrod about the NFL's normal procedures, Shah said this was really the first instance where the process had played out under the league's new policy.

-- Shah heavily emphasized the narrow authority courts have to meddle in arbitration rulings and the broad power granted to Goodell in the NFL's collective bargaining agreement.

During the turn for Elliott's representatives:

-- Elrod pushed Kessler on arguing the jurisdiction issue because of binding precedent in the circuit. Essentially, jurisdiction trumps all.

-- The judges wondered if a court had ever allowed a suit to be filed before the arbitration decision was issued. Kessler said he's not aware of a case like this one. The NFLPA argues that the case was "ripe" to file after Henderson ruled to not allow some evidence to be presented during the arbitration hearing. Shah had argued that the NFL "scoured the earth" to find a precedent and that there isn't one.

-- The NFLPA argued that the NFL never tried to obtain an emergency stay in the Brady case and he played all season while the matter was fought. So where, it asked, was the harm?

-- Kessler said he plans to seek discovery in the case in an effort to explore what Goodell did and didn't know.

-- Elrod hammered in on why the NFLPA did not wait to file after the arbitration decision was announced. Also, why would Elliott's chances be futile, she wondered, if he would have the chance to raise the same arguments in New York?

-- Kessler introduced a new case as precedent that could strengthen the NFLPA's argument, though Elrod scolded Kessler for not providing the information to the NFL sooner. The NFL plans to file a brief in response by Tuesday.

The panel's decision could come any time thereafter.

---

You can listen to the hearing for yourself.