A Clinton-appointed federal judge in New York on Tuesday dismissed the Democratic National Committee’s lawsuit against the Trump campaign, Russia, WikiLeaks and others over stolen emails.

U.S. District Judge John Koeltl found the DNC’s legal arguments “either moot or without merit” and dismissed the lawsuit “with prejudice,” meaning it’s a final ruling against Democrats.

“The court has considered all of the arguments raised by the parties. To the extent not specifically addressed, the arguments are either moot or without merit,” Koeltl wrote, according to a copy of the ruling posted to Lawfare.

“For the reasons explained above, the DNC’s Second Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice and the (Trump) Campaign’s motion for sanctions under Rule 11 is denied,” the judge wrote.

Essentially, Koeltl threw the lawsuit out, but would not impose a financial penalty on the DNC for pursuing the case, as requested by the Trump campaign.

The Democratic National Committee sued Russia, President Trump’s 2016 campaign, WikiLeaks, and the president’s top advisors and family over emails stolen from the DNC by Russian hackers. The documents exposed DNC officials conspiring to help Hillary Clinton over her primary challenger, Bernie Sanders, an embarrassing reveal that undoubtedly contributed to Clinton’s defeat.

The DNC’s lawsuit attempted to hold the Trump campaign and Russia accountable for the breach, but Koeltl noted that under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act “the Russian Federation cannot be sued in the courts of the United States for governmental actions … just as the United States government generally cannot be sued in courts abroad for its actions.”

As for the Trump campaign and others named in the lawsuit – including Julian Assange, Roger Stone, WikiLeaks, and others – there’s no proof they helped steal the emails and their right to publicize the contents is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Koeltl wrote.

“ … 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,” he wrote.

“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.”

Basically, the DNC thinks Trump’s campaign and associates coordinated their efforts with the Russians, though there’s only loose circumstantial evidence.

“The DNC does not allege that any of the non-Russian Federation defendants actually participated in any of the hacks on the DNC’s computer systems. Rather, the DNC argues that the Campaign, the Campaign defendants, Stone, … Assange, and WikiLeaks actively supported and approved of the Russian operation,” Koeltl wrote.

“The DNC points to various meetings between the defendants and individuals alleged to be connected to the Russian Federation and argues that the meetings are circumstantial evidence that the defendants conspired with the Russian Federation to steal the DNC’s materials and publish them,” he wrote.

Koeltl also noted that while the DNC claims the documents were stolen, it doesn’t claim that they were false or defamatory.

The bottom line is publishing stolen information isn’t illegal, and there’s no evidence to suggest Trump, WikiLeaks, or anyone else involved in the president’s campaign helped to actually steal the documents.

Koeltl wrote “it is constitutionally insignificant that WikiLeaks knew the Russian Federation had stolen the documents when it published them … and, contrary to the DNC’s argument, it is also irrelevant that WikiLeaks solicited the stolen documents from Russian agents.

“A person is entitled (to) publish stolen documents that the publisher requested from a source so long as the publisher did not participate in the theft,” he wrote.