An Ohio judicial panel on Saturday rejected an attempt by a far-left nonprofit group to issue arrest warrants for former President Donald Trump and Ohio Senator JD Vance.

The group had accused the two Republican leaders of spreading “false claims” regarding Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, including reports of migrants consuming pets and wildlife.

The Gateway Pundit reported that the far-left nonprofit Haitian Bridge Alliance (HBA) filed several charges against Trump and Vance, claiming their remarks about the influx of Haitian migrants led to panic and disorder.

The allegations stemmed from public statements made by Trump and Vance, in which they warned that the border crisis, overseen by border czar Kamala Harris, had led to dangerous and disturbing conditions in Springfield.

Springfield residents have increasingly voiced their frustration with the current administration’s failure to protect American communities from the consequences of illegal immigration.

Reports of crime spiking, resources being drained, and a town that was once peaceful turning chaotic have fueled anger. One resident even alleged seeing a Haitian migrant carving up a cat for food—a harrowing sign of how dire the situation has become.

Despite these legitimate concerns, HBA and its left-wing legal allies attempted to twist the narrative, accusing Trump and Vance of causing chaos by speaking the truth. The group even went so far as to allege that Trump’s comments were designed to “cause panic,” and that the First Amendment does not protect such speech.

According to HBA’s legal filing, “Trump’s and Vance’s refusals to stop [spreading false claims], despite serious chaos they were inflicting and the governor’s and mayor’s pleas, highlights their criminal purpose in spreading these lies. The chaos caused was the purpose, and the First Amendment affords no protection for that campaign of criminal conduct.”

The charges include, according to News 5 Cleveland:

Disrupting public service — by causing widespread bomb and other threats that resulted in massive disruptions to the public services in Springfield, Ohio;
Making false alarms — by knowingly causing alarm in the Springfield community by continuing to repeat lies that state and local officials have said were false;
Committing telecommunications harassment — by spreading claims they know to be false during the presidential debate, campaign rallies, nationally televised interviews, and social media;
Committing aggravated menacing in violation — by knowingly making intimidating statements with the intent to abuse, threaten, or harass the recipients, including Trump’s threat to deport immigrants who are here legally to Venezuela, a land they have never known;
Committing aggravated menacing — by knowingly causing others to falsely believe that members of Springfield’s Haitian community would cause serious physical harm to the person or property of others in Springfield; and
Violating the prohibition against complicity — by conspiring with one another and spreading vicious lies that caused innocent parties to be parties to their various crimes.

However, the Clark County Municipal Court swiftly shut down the request for arrest warrants. The court stated there was “no probable cause” to move forward with the charges or issue summons against Trump and Vance, according to Springfield News-Sun.

While the court dismissed the request for arrest warrants, they did refer the case to county prosecutors for further review.

“The conclusion of whether the evidence and causation necessary for probable cause exists to commence a prosecution of the alleged offenses is best left in the investigatory hands of the prosecution,” the judges wrote in their decision.

The panel of judges underscored the strong protections afforded to political speech under the U.S. Constitution, particularly during election season.

“The presidential election is less than 35 days away. The issue of immigration is contentious,” the ruling states.

“Due to the proximity of the election, and the contentiousness concerning the immigration policies of both candidates, the Court cannot automatically presume the good faith nature of the affidavits.”