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

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, appointed by Trump, dismissed the core argument of the lawsuit, which claimed Chief Justice John Roberts has executive powers that position him under presidential oversight. The lawsuit argued that Roberts’ role in the Judicial Conference of the United States places him within the executive branch’s scope.

Back in April, America First Legal claimed that Roberts, as the leader of the Judicial Conference—the federal courts’ main policymaking body—holds authority akin to the executive branch, especially in overseeing the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO).

The lawsuit sought to uncover alleged “lawfare” by congressional Democrats, who have accused conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito of ethical misconduct and failing to report luxury trips and “personal hospitality” benefits on their financial disclosure forms.

It alleged that the Judicial Conference and AO closed a “personal hospitality” loophole due to pressure from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga. The suit sought to use FOIA to uncover communications between these entities, Whitehouse, Johnson, or their staff regarding the issue.

Calling the Judicial Conference and AO “independent agencies within the executive branch” rather than courts, the lawsuit insisted that Roberts acts “as an agency head” and a “principal officer […] required to be presidentially appointed.”

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.