A Manhattan federal judge Tuesday ruled that President Donald Trump and members of his campaign could not be held liable for Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee computers ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

U.S. Judge John G. Koeltl of the Southern District of New York said the Russian Federation was the “primary wrongdoer” in an alleged criminal enterprise, which also included WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, foreign nationals and others close to the Trump campaign.

However, Koeltl, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, said federal law shielded Russia from being sued in U.S. federal courts. Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, such remedies can only be pursued through state actions, including sanctions imposed by the president or Congress.

The “second-level participants,” meanwhile, had not aided Russia in carrying out the hacks, and were thus shielded by the First Amendment for their role in sharing information that had been illegally obtained.

“The First Amendment prevents such liability in the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest despite defects in the way the materials were obtained so long as the disseminator did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place,” Koeltl wrote in an 81-page opinion, issued late Thursday.

“The plausible allegations against the remaining defendants are insufficient to hold them liable for the illegality that occurred in obtaining the materials from the DNC,” he said.

The DNC's suit, filed in April 2018, seized on multiple attacks on DNC computers that were carried out from Moscow, and claimed that Russia had found in the Trump campaign a “willing and active partner” in its mission to interfere with the 2016 election.

According to the complaint, Russian agents made it clear through “multiple meetings, emails and other communications” that the Kremlin had favored Trump and intended to do damage to his opponent, Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic Party. However, instead of reporting inappropriate contacts by Russian agents to federal authorities, the campaign “gleefully welcomed” Russia's help and even publicly encouraged the hacks, the suit said.

According to the lawsuit, the damage was profound. The DNC said that it had suffered a “dramatic drop” in donations. It had to pay more than $1 million to repair and fix its cybersecurity issues, and staff members, the complaint said, suffered harassment, including death threats.

However, the suit also aims to “address the individual and collective conduct” of the named defendants, who included Trump adviser Roger Stone and WikiLeaks—both named defendants—to the meeting between then-campaign manager Paul Manafort, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Donald Trump Jr.—all also named defendants—and a Russian attorney who promised “dirt” on Clinton.

In total, the lawsuit claimed 14 counts against the defendants, including racketeering, conspiracy and trespass.

The defendants all moved to dismiss the suit, and the Trump campaign moved for sanctions, claiming that many of the DNC's allegations and theories were undercut by the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference in the election.

The Russian Federation did not appear in the case, but did submit a statement claiming immunity.

On Tuesday, Koeltl said the case did not meet a narrow exception to FISA, which allows foreign governments to be sued only on the basis of commercial activity.

“Therefore, the DNC's claims against the Russian Federation are barred by the FISA and no exception applies,” Koeltl said. “Relief from the alleged activities of the Russian Federation should be from the political branches of the government and not from the courts.”

Koeltl also struck down claims that the remaining defendants had actively participated in the hacks, at one point calling the DNC's arguments “entirely divorced” from the facts alleged in its complaint.

However, he stopped short of granting the campaign's Rule 11 motion, finding the complaint was not “so objectively unreasonable” as to warrant sanctions in the case.

Attorneys for the DNC and the Trump campaign did not return calls seeking comment on the ruling.

The case was captioned DNC v. Russian Federation.

Read More: