Nothing was decided, but plenty was said Monday during the first hearing in Atlanta's federal court over a challenge to Georgia's new law restricting abortion.

As soon as he entered, Judge Steve Jones of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia took note of the crowd of litigants, lawyers, lawmakers, activists, concerned citizens and reporters.

"I'm going to be lonely in this courtroom tomorrow," he said.

Then he listened for nearly two hours to four different lawyers for the litigants.

Activists challenging the law were asking for a temporary injunction blocking it while their lawsuit is pending. The state argued that no injunction is necessary because the case can be decided before the law takes effect Jan. 1.

Jones said he has the case on a four-month track, on which a trial would be held after the law had already taken effect. He left a window open for the parties to agree to expedite the process by shortening or eliminating discovery to speed things up. But he said he believes they need some discovery, even if it's abbreviated.

The arguments and the judge's many questions seemed to suggest that an injunction will be granted and that a bench trial will take place in early 2020. But Jones reserved judgment, saying he would take all the arguments under advisement and rule soon.

Jones closed the hearing with the point that underscored the day's proceedings.

"I recognize I'm not going to be the last word on this," Jones said.

Indeed, supporters of the bills in Georgia and other states have said their hope is that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear their appeals and overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision affirming a woman's right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy up until the point of viability—when a baby could survive after birth.

SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective is among the plaintiffs in the suit which names Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, Attorney General Chris Carr and prosecutors around the state as defendants.

Out-of-town lawyers spoke for the plaintiffs and the governor. Atlanta lawyers spoke for two district attorneys who were also sued.

First up was Susan Talcott Camp of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, speaking for SisterSong and a long list of doctors, clinics and medical providers.

"This is a simple case," Camp said. "Georgia cannot ban abortion before viability." Camp said the judge is bound by more than 50 years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, dating back to Roe v. Wade.

"Until viability, the state must respect a woman's authority to make her own decision, with her pastor, mom, intimate partner and whoever she invites into that circle," Camp said.

Jones began asking Camp questions in the first five minutes, focusing largely on the plaintiff's vagueness claim—which could be used to void the law.

"At best it's vague," Camp said several times. "At worst, it simply operates as a ban."

But the state's counsel said the law is not a ban on previability abortion because it allows the procedure before a heartbeat can be detected—and after, in cases where the mother will die otherwise, or when a woman has filed an official police report charging rape or incest.

Attorney General Chris Carr and Solicitor General Andrew Pinson, tasked with defending the state, have hired outside counsel: Jeffrey M. Harris of Consovoy McCarthy from Washington, D.C.

Harris was not at the hearing Monday, but his partners Patrick Strawbridge and Steven Begakis were. Strawbridge made the argument for the governor and the attorney general.

Jones also questioned Strawbridge about the vagueness claim and the defense to it.

"The Supreme Court has been very clear," Strawbridge said. "The void for vagueness challenge carries a very heavy burden. They cannot meet their heavy burden."

While Camp repeatedly used the term "ban" to describe the law, Strawbridge referred to it as "the LIFE Act."

"We don't think this is a ban," Strawbridge said. He said it's a reflection of a "sincerely held belief by people in this state and by people of all colors and genders."

The case is SisterSong v. Kemp, No. 1:19-cv-02973-SCJ.

The complaint is a constitutional challenge to House Bill 481, which the state calls "the Living Infants Fairness and Equality Act." The governor signed it into law on May 7. The law is one of dozens around the country that supporters call a "heartbeat bill" because it bans abortion from the point when a doctor can pick up a pulse on an ultrasound. That can be as early as six weeks into pregnancy, according to the statute. Opponents say the name is intentionally misleading because no heart has yet formed in what would be a tiny collection of cells. The law gives the embryo the full rights of citizenship and provides for the possibility of criminal prosecution for violations.