In a recent development, a Pennsylvania judge has ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump, granting him presidential immunity in a lawsuit brought against him by a state election worker.

The worker, James Savage, a voting machine supervisor in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, claimed that Trump’s public statements about the integrity of the 2020 election led to “hatred” and death threats, resulting in him suffering two heart attacks.

Savage’s lawsuit accused Trump, along with Rudy Giuliani, two Delaware County poll watchers, and others, of conspiring to defame him by falsely claiming that he tampered with the 2020 Presidential election results.

The statements in question were made during a Pennsylvania State Senate Majority Policy Committee hearing in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, on November 5, 2020, a tweet sent out on November 27, 2020, and a letter sent to the House of Representatives January 6 Committee.

Judge Michael E. Erdos of the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, who presided over the case, granted Trump presidential and legislative immunity regarding his statements in 2020, resulting in the dismissal of the case against him.

The judge acknowledged that Trump’s comments on election integrity were undoubtedly of significant public concern and dealt with a cornerstone of democracy, elections.

In his ruling, Judge Erdos noted that it is within a President’s official duties to address matters of public concern and use the “bully pulpit” to communicate with the nation.

RELATED: Nightmare Scenario: Trump Could Be Denied Bail, Held Without Trial If Indicted for Jan. 6th Charges

The court declined to delve into Trump’s mindset or motivations behind his statements, emphasizing that such determinations were not within its purview.

The judge asserted that other legal proceedings may examine the propriety of Trump’s statements and actions while he was President, but this specific case was not the appropriate venue for such examination.

In response to the court’s decision, Trump’s legal team expressed satisfaction with the ruling, affirming that the principle of Presidential Immunity was upheld.

Trump’s attorney, Alina Habba, stated that the court recognized the President’s discretion to address election integrity without fear of liability and asserted that the remaining claims made by Savage lacked merit.

It is important to note that while this case may no longer hold Trump liable for his statements, it does not preclude other legal proceedings from exploring the propriety of his actions during his tenure as President.

The court’s ruling marks a significant development in the ongoing discussions surrounding the 2020 election’s integrity and the broader implications for public discourse and presidential authority.

RELATED: Trump Draws a Line in the Sand: Any Republican Failing to Do This Must Be ‘Immediately Primaried’