The hearing ended Monday evening with no decision from the judge about Mark Meadows' request.

Meadows' attorneys asked the court for a "prompt" ruling "as soon as it possibly can," and the judge said he would rule quickly.

The judge noted he would give it "thorough consideration" and that it was a "very important case" and would likely set precedent.

The judge added that if he doesn't rule by Sept. 6 -- the date the defendants are set to be arraigned -- he said Meadows will have to go through with the arraignment.

-ABC News' Olivia Rubin

The prosecution closed their arguments by saying there is "nothing to show" how Meadows’ participation in a criminal conspiracy to overturn an election was within his official duties.

Prosecutors questioned if it was "necessary or proper" to offer campaign resources to state officials or arrange state elections.

"It was done so Donald Trump could be declared the winner of the 2020 election, when he was not," prosecutors said regarding Meadows’ actions.

Prosecutors said all Meadows had to do during the hearing Monday was "look at that law, something he astronomically paid no attention to today."

The prosecution claimed the defense did not demonstrate what federal authorities allowed the chief of staff to arrange Trump's call with Raffensperger.

The prosecution also said Meadows in multiple instances throughout his testimony today used the term "we" while never explaining who "we" meant when he described calls and emails. Was it the campaign or the federal office, the prosecution asked.

-ABC News' Riley Hoffman, Mike Levine, Soorin Kim and Nadine El-Bawab

Mark Meadows’ legal team began its final argument to the judge.

They contended that removing this case to federal court requires them to meet "the lowest evidentiary burden one can imagine."

The defense just needs to show "some kind of… connection to the duties" of chief of staff to warrant removal, Meadows’ lawyer said.

He said a "critical aspect" of Meadows’ testimony Monday was that he took the actions he did related to the Jan. 2, 2021, call to get "closure" so the government could move on "to the rest of the transition and peaceful transfer of power."

The lawyer also said that "the federal government has a huge role in post-election matters."

-ABC News' Mike Levine

After prosecutors played a portion of the Jan. 2, 2021, phone call between then-President Donald Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, prosecutors asked Raffensperger, "Did Trump win?"

"No, he did not," Raffensperger responded, adding, "He lost the election in the state of Georgia."

Raffensperger then listed off the investigations he and his team conducted into allegations of voter fraud, rattling them off one by one, stating that none of them found evidence of voter fraud.

"You add that all up, none of that was sufficient," Raffensperger said. "We spoke the truth."

Raffensperger finished testifying after over one hour on the stand.

Mark Meadows testified that the Hatch Act does apply to the White House chief of staff, but he said “there are some differences of opinion on how it should apply.”

Meadows insisted that when it comes to his interactions with people connected to Donald Trump's campaign, including Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, he said, "I didn't [see ] that as a violation of the Hatch Act."

The Hatch Act limits the political participation and speech of federal employees.

-ABC News' Mike Levine