Once upon a time (in mid-2015), some climate scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published a study in the journal Science. This sort of thing happens all the time. Yet, in this case, all hell broke loose.

The problem was that this study put yet another nail in the crowded lid of a coffin housing the claim that global warming had somehow suddenly ceased in 1998. Because the study involved an update to NOAA’s global temperature dataset, some who disliked its conclusion—like US House Science Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-Texas)—alleged without evidence that the scientists had improperly manipulated data.

This began a long fight between NOAA and Rep. Smith, who issued subpoenas for the scientists’ e-mails and early drafts. NOAA scientists met with Smith to carefully explain the study’s methods and point out that all the relevant data and research was already publicly available. But the agency refused to hand over the scientists’ communications and drafts.

In stepped Judicial Watch, a conservative group that regularly files Freedom of Information Act requests for government documents. NOAA didn’t provide the group with the e-mails, drafts, and peer reviews either, so Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit in December of 2015.

NOAA turned over some of the requested documents a few months later, but the agency maintained that many others were protected by an exemption in the Freedom of Information Act for “deliberative” and “predecisional” materials. NOAA argued that this exemption was really doubly important for scientists to effectively carry out research without having to worry about whether their every word could be taken out of context by adversarial groups.

Judicial Watch asserted that this exemption should not apply in this case for a number of reasons. It didn’t believe that preparing a study for peer review and publication constituted a “predecisional” activity, for one, since NOAA wasn’t going to make a policy decision at the end. Judicial Watch also argued that, since it believed misconduct had occurred, NOAA should not be allowed to withhold anything that might prove Judicial Watch right.

Three weeks ago, the Washington, DC, District Court finally ruled (PDF) against Judicial Watch. The decision rejected each of their arguments. The judge’s decision cited precedent settling the question of whether preparing research for publication counts as “predecisional” (it does). The idea that allegations of misconduct—which the judge notes “cites... a single article in a British tabloid”—should shortcut any FOIA exceptions was also firmly dismissed.

“Since the very purpose of FOIA is to help uncover government misconduct,” Judge Christopher Cooper wrote, “if any allegation of misconduct sufficed to pierce the deliberative process privilege, the exception would soon swallow the privilege whole.”

Judicial Watch has the opportunity to appeal this decision, but it did not respond to a request for comment. The group also has not posted the documents that NOAA handed over in May 2016 on its website. Initially, a spokesperson told Ars only that “Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) educational foundation, and, as such, we analyze and formulate our thoughts on incoming documents and then make them publicly available.” But since then, Judicial Watch has not responded to multiple requests for an update on its plans.

It was unclear how the federal government would handle this case once President Trump, who has been openly dismissive of climate science, took office. But when the Department of Commerce (which contains NOAA) submitted its final filing in mid-March of this year, its position was unchanged.