The Supreme Court threw out fraud convictions on Thursday against two New Jersey officials involved in the “Bridgegate” political scandal, the George Washington Bridge traffic jam that rocked the administration of then-Gov. Chris Christie.

Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Elena Kagan said that “for no reason” other than “political payback” the aides “used deception” to cut access lanes from Fort Lee, New Jersey, to the bridge.

The move “jeopardized the safety of the town’s residents,” Kagan wrote, but concluded that “not every corrupt act by state or local officials is a federal crime.”

Bridget Anne Kelly, who served as an aide to Christie, and Bill Baroni, the deputy director of the Port Authority, were convicted for their roles in the scandal and ultimately sentenced to 13 and 18 months in 2017. Currently out on bond, they asked the Supreme Court to reverse their convictions.

The ruling is the latest example of the court narrowing the type of conduct by public officials that can be considered fraud under federal law.

In recent years, the court has decisively narrowed the government’s ability to charge public officials with federal crimes for corruption offenses, most notably in 2016 after former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell took hundreds of thousands of dollars from a businessman who wanted the governor to intervene on his behalf with state officials to benefit his business.

“Once again, the Supreme Court has thrown out federal criminal convictions of public officials who, by their own admission, abused their power for corrupt and illegitimate purposes,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

“The harder question is whether Congress will respond to rulings like this one by expanding the scope of these laws, or whether we’re going to end up with a world in which criminal liability for such nefarious conduct depends upon the color of one’s collar,” Vladeck added.

Christie’s aides argued that they were wrongly convicted and that prosecutors overreached when they charged them under various federal fraud statutes.

Kagan added that the aides’ scheme did not aim to obtain money or property, and therefore they could not have violated wire fraud laws.

In a statement to CNN, Christie says members of his administration were “dragged through the mud” since the case was first taken up by the Justice Department.

“As many contended from the beginning, and as the court confirmed today, no federal crimes were ever committed in this matter by anyone in my administration. It is good for all involved that today justice has finally been done,” Christie said.

Traffic problems in Fort Lee

The case originated when a scheme imposed crippling gridlock in Fort Lee to punish Mark Sokolich, the town’s mayor, for not endorsing Christie’s 2013 re-election bid, according to the US Attorney’s office in New Jersey.

At trial, Kelly and Baroni testified that the lanes were closed so that officials could conduct a traffic study. But emails and text messages released in January 2014 included allegations that the real effort was to punish Sokolich.

“Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee,” Kelly wrote in one text.

The aides were ultimately fired in 2014 and Kelly and Baroni were charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

Deputy Solicitor General Eric Feigin told the Supreme Court that Kelly and Baroni lied and used “unwitting” personnel to conceal their “true punitive purpose.”

“Lying about the existence of a traffic study in order to obtain the Port Authority’s resources is fraud,” Feigin argued.

“They don’t get a free pass because their motive happened to be political,” Feigin added.

But lawyers for Kelly and Baroni say the government went too far. They argued that while the aides were convicted for property fraud, they never took bribes or kickbacks, but instead were pursuing political motives.

Jacob Roth, a lawyer for Kelly, told the justices that he wasn’t suggesting the scheme was “OK” but that the remedy was not a federal property fraud conviction. He said the actions could be subject to political repercussions or New Jersey state laws, but not the federal statute that was used against his client. He said the lower court opinions against his client would produce a “sweeping expansion of federal jurisdiction.”

“In an ideal world, public officials would always act solely in the best interest of the public,” Roth argued. “But our world is decidedly not ideal, and politics is one of its inherent features, accepted as the cost of democratic accountability.”