A federal judge in Washington, D.C., grappled on Thursday with the U.S. House of Representatives' right to sue President Donald Trump in his plan to redirect billions in federal dollars to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee to the Washington, D.C., federal trial court, was hearing argument in the U.S. House's challenge to Trump's plan. It was the second time since last Friday that lawyers have tangled in court over the issue.

James Burnham, a lawyer for the Justice Department, argued the courts cannot wade into the dispute between the legislative and executive branches. He argued that Congress had “plenty of tools” in its displeasure of the wall rather than seeking a court's intervention.

“If you allow them to sue, you basically move the entire political process into Article III,” Burnham said, adding later that “the last thing” the Constitution's framers wanted was “all of that political arm wrestling going on in the courts” instead of the political branches.

Douglas Letter, the U.S. House general counsel, countered that courts have recognized their ability to step into such clashes of authority. He pointed back to Marbury v. Madison, and said that both branches expect the courts to interpret the words of the Constitution.

“Courts are equipped to rule on these matters,” Letter said.

McFadden appeared to struggle with the lack of precedent to guide him on this question. He noted that have been more cases dealing with subpoena fights.

The judge also observed that the chief justice in Marbury had said the province of the court was to decide on individuals' rights, not to question how the executive branch performs its duties. “It strikes me that perhaps Marbury may not be helpful to you in this idea of whether the House is the right party to be bringing this concern,” McFadden said.

But Letter countered that some of McFadden's colleagues in the D.C. federal trial court have, in fact, ruled in favor of appropriateness of congressional suits. One of the examples he raised was the lawsuit that the U.S. House, then led by a Republican majority, filed against the Obama administration over its payments to health insurers. Judge Rosemary Collyer in 2015 ruled the House had standing to sue in the case, which was later settled.

Thursday's hearing was something of a reprise of the arguments last week in a separate challenge to Trump's border wall plan. In that dispute, the American Civil Liberties Union represents several groups who say the president is unlawfully redirecting funds. Letter, as a friend of the court, was allotted time in the hearing, which took place in Oakland, California.

On Thursday, Burnham argued that Congress never explicitly denied Trump's bid to use federal dollars to construct the wall. He essentially argued the executive branch was acting legally in the way it spent money Congress had appropriated, even if it wasn't the way it preferred.

Letter argued on the other hand that Congress did deny the president's request for border wall money. He explained that the president had sought money specifically to build the wall, and Congress in turn agreed to supply less money than was requested for that effort.

“So the item for which he wants the funds has been denied,” Letter said. “I don't see any other way to view what Congress did here than denial of the item.”

Letter asked the court Thursday to issue a preliminary injunction. He said there was “irreparable” injury in the case because the executive was already spending money.

The judge did not say on Thursday when he would issue any rulings.

Trump declared a national emergency in February, announcing his plans to build a wall using money that was appropriated for other purposes. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, in a joint statement at the time, decried Trump's move as an “end-run around Congress” and a usurpation of its exclusive power of the purse.

The U.S. House later filed its lawsuit, now one of several focused on the wall, in April.