Last July, Trump filed separate cases against Twitter, Facebook and Google’s YouTube service over similar decisions to limit or eliminate his ability to use their sites to spread his messages about election fraud and other issues. The suits contended that the social media companies were essentially acting as government agents when they banned his speech and that doing so violated the First Amendment, which applies only to government action, not that of private companies or individuals.

However, U.S. District Court Judge James Donato ruled Friday that federal lawmakers’ proposals for legislation regulating Twitter and similar platforms did not amount to the kind of direct intimidation or demand that could plausibly lead to the conclusion that Twitter was acting on behalf of the federal government when it shut down Trump’s account.

“Plaintiffs offer only ambiguous and open-ended statements to the effect that ‘we may legislate’ something unfavorable to Twitter or the social media sector,” wrote Donato, an appointee of former President Barack Obama. “There is no way to allege with any degree of plausibility when, if ever, the comments voiced by a handful of members of Congress might become a law, or what changes such a law might impose on social media companies like Twitter. … Much of what plaintiffs challenge fits within the normal boundaries of a congressional investigation, as opposed to threats of punitive state action.”