Sen. Bob Menendez's trial on bribery and other charges will go ahead as planned after a federal judge ruled Tuesday that a Supreme Court ruling did not require him to dismiss the indictment.

But U.S. District Judge William Walls could still rule on the arguments made by Menendez lawyers after hearing prosecutors' evidence at the trial. Jury selection is due to begin later this month, with the trial itself starting after Labor Day.

Menendez's attorneys had argued that the high court's reversal of the conviction of Robert McDonnell, the former governor of Virginia, changed what the government has to show to prove bribery so much that the senator's April 2015 indictment should be thrown out.

Menendez is accused of using his office to benefit the business interests of co-defendant Salomon Melgen, a friend and Florida eye specialist. Melgen is accused of bribing Menendez with more than $700,000 in contributions to political committees, as well as free flights on Melgen's private jet, lodging in his home at a Dominican Republic resort, golf outings, meals, and a stay at a hotel suite in Paris.

In return, Menendez allegedly agreed to pressure officials in President Barack Obama's administration on issues that would benefit Melgen financially or personally, including seeking visas for foreign girlfriends to visit Melgen, federal pressure to enforce a cargo-screening contract a Melgen company had in the Dominican Republic, and leniency on a disputed Medicare regulation.

McDonnell:Prosecutors will drop charges against ex-Virginia governor

Arguments:Experts say Menendez filing won't prevent trial, but could keep case from going to jury

Background:Turned down by Supreme Court, Sen. Bob Menendez expects vindication at trial

Melgen was convicted of Medicare fraud this year in a separate indictment and is due to be sentenced on Friday. His attorney has said he will appeal.

Menendez has said he would be exonerated of any wrongdoing, but for more than two years he has tried to have the charges thrown out, even trying to get the Supreme Court to intervene. The latest motion to Walls said the McDonnell ruling changed the definition of "official acts" in bribery so much that Menendez's attempt to influence executive branch officials could not be considered criminal.

Walls said he would need to hear testimony at trial before he could decide that issue.

"Whether the acts alleged in the superseding indictment satisfy the definition of an 'official act' under McDonnell is a factual determination that cannot be resolved before the government has the opportunity to present evidence at trial," Walls said.

Legal experts have said a key question may be whether administration officials felt they were being pressured to act.

Walls left the door open that the case would never go to a jury.

"The court reserves its consideration of defendants' motion to dismiss until the conclusion of the presentment of evidence at trial," Walls wrote.