A lawsuit initiated by a pro-Donald Trump law firm, co-founded by Stephen Miller, was dismissed due to jurisdictional issues. The federal judge clarified that judicial bodies are not subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits.

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, appointed by Trump, dismissed the lawsuit’s core argument, which claimed that Chief Justice John Roberts had executive powers, thus placing him under the president’s oversight and control in specific capacities.

In April, America First Legal contended that Roberts, in his role as the presiding officer of the Judicial Conference of the United States—the federal courts’ policymaking body—exercised executive branch authority. This role, they argued, included overseeing the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO).

The lawsuit aimed to reveal alleged “lawfare” by congressional Democrats, who accused conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito of ethical violations and lawbreaking for not disclosing luxury trips and other perks in their financial reports.

The complaint asserted that the Judicial Conference and AO closed the “personal hospitality” loophole due to pressure from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Representative Hank Johnson, D-Ga. The lawsuit sought to uncover, via FOIA, communications involving both entities, Whitehouse, Johnson, or their staff regarding this matter.

The lawsuit described the Judicial Conference and AO as “independent agencies within the executive branch” rather than judicial courts, arguing that Roberts functions as an “agency head” and a “principal officer” requiring presidential appointment.

The initial FOIA requests went nowhere, as the Judicial Conference and the AO countered that the transparency law does not apply to entities of the judicial branch.

The lawsuit that followed didn’t make any headway, as McFadden granted lead defendant Roberts’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

“While FOIA promises access to many Executive Branch records, Congress excused itself and the courts from FOIA’s reach,” the judge said straightforwardly, before picking apart the rest.

“The case boils down to one issue. Are the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office ‘agencies’ subject to FOIA?” McFadden asked and answered no.

“For starters, neither is like the Executive Branch entities FOIA explicitly contemplates as examples of an ‘agency,’” the judge said, adding the Judicial Conference and AO “do not appear to be the type of entities Congress had in mind in creating FOIA—Executive Branch departments and independent agencies.”

Instead, the entities “fall within FOIA’s exception for ‘courts of the United States’” though they are not themselves courts, McFadden went on.

“Nothing about either entity’s structure suggests the President must supervise their employees or otherwise keep them ‘accountable,’ as is the case for executive officers,” he concluded.

Read the dismissal in full here.