Three judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard arguments Friday over whether a pregnant undocumented immigrant should be allowed to obtain an abortion, a case that presents constitutional questions that could make their way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Though the judges did not indicate when they will make a decision, one is expected in the next few days because the 17-year-old, known only as Jane Doe, is 15 weeks pregnant. She is currently detained in a federally funded shelter for undocumented minors in Texas, which bans abortion after 20 weeks.

The case, brought on behalf of Doe by the American Civil Liberties Union, was filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia where a judge Wednesday ordered the government to allow the abortion. The government appealed, and should it lose again at the circuit court, it could lead to an en banc rehearing or go to the Supreme Court.

The Justice Department argues Jane Doe is not being denied any constitutional rights to an abortion because she can return to her home country, which would release her from government custody. Doe obtained a state court order allowing her to proceed with the abortion despite being a minor. But the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services will not allow the shelter, run by a government contractor, or Doe's court-appointed guardian to transport her to the abortion facility.

The ACLU says that by forcing Doe to either carry her pregnancy to term or return to her home country, the government is unconstitutionally vetoing her right to an abortion.

Of the three-judge panel who heard the case, Judge Karen Henderson and Judge Brett Kavanaugh were appointed by Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, respectively, while Judge Patricia Millett is an appointee of President Barack Obama.

Here are three key questions from Friday's hearing:

Does the government believe undocumented immigrants have the right to get an abortion?

Henderson, who participated in the hearing via phone, was the first to ask whether the government had a position on Doe's constitutional right to an abortion. DOJ lawyer Catherine Dorsey replied that the government does not.

“How can you not take a position on that?” Kavanaugh asked.

Dorsey replied that even if Doe had a right, the government's refusal to facilitate the abortion does not violate it because it does not place an undue burden on her ability to get one. Later on, Kavanaugh asked if the government was affirmatively waiving any argument about undocumented immigrants' right to abortion.

Dorsey said the government did not raise that argument, but would prefer not to waive it. Millett jumped in, asking how the government could not waive the argument. Dorsey said she did not have the authority to make such a decision, and another question was asked that changed the subject.

The exchange showed the government does not want to take a position and, instead of saying the right exists, would rather just assume it exists in this case. It will be consequential if this position changes in the future, whether in this case or another.

Is the government “facilitating” an abortion?

The government's key argument is that allowing the abortion would force HHS to facilitate it, which it has the right not to do. In Doe's case, the government doesn't need to transport her to the abortion facility nor provide her abortion, ACLU lawyer Brigitte Amiri said. HHS, acting through the Office of Refugee Resettlement, need only allow Doe to leave the shelter she is being held at.

Millett asked Dorsey what the government would be doing that “facilitated” the abortion. She replied that the director of ORR has to give approval, which would require HHS to agree that getting the abortion is in Doe's best interest. Millett noted that there were people willing to transport Doe and that the shelter was willing to arrange appointments, so the government didn't need to do anything but not stop the abortion, perhaps showing she was skeptical of the argument.

Later on, Kavanaugh asked about the difference between how the government treats adult undocumented immigrants in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody versus minors. ICE's policy is to allow detainees to get abortions, just as women in federal prison are allowed to obtain abortions because they have no other option to obtain one besides via the government.

Kavanaugh asked why this difference existed, and Dorsey said she did not know why ICE had the policy. Kavanaugh then said the government argued it had an interest in favoring life, and that he was trying to get a sense of how “consistently” the government applies that interest. If he finds the interest does not appear to be uniform, he could be suggesting the argument is insincere.

Is sponsorship an option?

The government argues Doe's rights are not violated because she has other options to free herself from HHS custody, such as leaving the country or getting released from the shelter to a sponsor. In most cases, undocumented immigrant minors in the custody of HHS are held for a short period before being released to a government-approved sponsor, who is often a family member.

Early in the arguments, Kavanaugh said that because the court prefers to steer clear of ruling on constitutional issues, releasing Doe to a sponsor could solve the problem altogether. He lamented that there was little about the sponsorship issue in the record.

Doe, however, has been unable to find a sponsor, though she is working with attorneys to find one, Amiri said. Amiri added that while she was not entirely sure how the sponsor process worked, finding a sponsor could take months, time Doe does not have.

Kavanaugh later asked a hypothetical question about what would happen if the government allowed Doe to get an abortion only if she did not find a sponsor in time. Amiri said that under Supreme Court precedent, a delay counts as an undue burden.

Millett also asked about how much control Doe has over the sponsor process, including whether she is entitled to know why sponsors could be rejected and whether the decision to approve or deny a sponsor can be challenged.

The case could hinge on the sponsorship issue, Kavanaugh said, because it is a major prong of the government's argument that there are options for Doe. If sponsorship is not possible, she has one less option.