Dethroned Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan received some good news Friday.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a long-shot appeal in a federal court case involving the question of whether Madigan put up sham candidates to help him win the 2016 Democratic primary for the Southwest Side Illinois House seat he had held for decades.

Madigan challenger Jason Gonzales sought up to $2 million in damages in a federal lawsuit contending the speaker and his Democratic organization backed two candidates with Hispanic names in the primary to dilute the opposition vote and give the Democratic leader a clearer path to victory. A U.S. District Court judge had dismissed the case.

Madigan won the primary with 65% of the vote.

The high court declining to review the appeal bid ended a yearslong fight that shined a bright light on the inner workings of Madigan’s political organization through dozens of depositions, including the only one the speaker said he had ever given.

“We’re extremely disappointed,” said Tony Peraica, Gonzales’ attorney and a former Republican member of the Cook County Board.

Peraica noted the high court often has been “loathe to take up political cases,” but he said he had hoped the conservative-leaning court would have made an exception this time.

A spokeswoman said Madigan had no comment on Friday’s decision.

Madigan failed to hold onto the speakership in January when a faction of his own House Democrats refused to grant him another term at the helm despite his nationwide record of 36 years in charge of a state legislative body.

During his last year as speaker, Madigan had been implicated as part of the sweeping ComEd bribes-for-favors scandal in which the company paid a $200 million federal fine. He has not been charged with a crime and has denied wrongdoing.

In the lawsuit, Gonzales had argued lower courts incorrectly tossed the case on grounds that voters knew about the alleged sham candidates because he raised the issue repeatedly during the campaign, effectively giving voters a chance to evaluate the matter when filling out their ballots.

Gonzales had maintained such logic put a “chilling effect on future campaign speech.” He did not seek to overturn the election but argued damages should be awarded because of Madigan’s alleged “deception on the face of the ballot.”

In his deposition, Madigan denied that he directed anyone who worked for him or was associated with him to recruit candidates to run against Gonzales.

But even while initially dismissing the case, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly called it “undisputed” that some members of Madigan’s political organization worked to put the two alleged shams — Grasiela Rodriguez and Joe Barboza — on the ballot.

Kennelly also wrote the “evidence supports a reasonable inference that Madigan authorized or at least was aware of the recruitment effort.”

But Kennelly explained that Gonzales made Madigan’s “deceptive tactics a central issue in his campaign” and news outlets publicized the allegations. Such publicity “placed the alleged misconduct squarely within the political realm, enabling voters to rebuke Madigan by electing his challenger,” Kennelly wrote.