Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes suffered a major blow in her high-profile criminal case against key Trump allies and alternate electors from the 2020 election, as defendants cleared a significant legal hurdle in their bid to dismiss the charges.

They argued the case violates an Arizona law intended to prevent politically motivated prosecutions.

In April of last year, Mayes’ office announced that a grand jury had indicted former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, and five other former Trump aides on felony charges related to the Trump campaign’s efforts to challenge the 2020 election results.

The indictment, which includes charges of conspiracy, fraud, and forgery, also names Trump as an “unindicted co-conspirator.”

Additionally, eleven Arizona Republicans who served as alternate electors have been indicted, including former Arizona GOP Chairwoman Kelli Ward, state senators Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern, and Arizona’s RNC committeeman Tyler Bowyer.

Progressive prosecutors have repeatedly labeled alternate electors as “fake electors” while pursuing felony forgery and fraud charges against them.

Similar cases have been brought by Democratic attorneys general in Michigan and Nevada, though a Clark County district judge dismissed the Nevada case.

Meanwhile, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis initiated a comparable case in Georgia, but it now appears to be stalled.

Mayes—who narrowly won her 2022 election by fewer than 300 votes—has vowed to press forward with the case, even after President Trump carried Arizona by a wide margin. However, the prosecution now faces serious jeopardy as defendants have filed a motion arguing that Mayes violated Arizona’s anti-SLAPP law.

This law allows defendants to seek dismissal if they can demonstrate that “the legal action was substantially motivated by a desire to deter, retaliate against, or prevent the lawful exercise of a constitutional right.”

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sam Myers ruled that the defendants had presented sufficient evidence to proceed with their anti-SLAPP motion, according to a report from KJZZ Phoenix. However, the judge clarified that he has not yet determined whether the case will be dismissed entirely.

“The court finds that the defendant’s motions do include information that the charges in this case include, at least in part, some arguably lawful exercise of their rights of petition and speech,” Myers said in his ruling.

He added: “Defendant’s motions also include information that the attorney general has made statements in the past, suggesting that what happened in this case should never happen again, which they argue shows a desire to deter the actions that were alleged in this case.”