A judge has rejected U.S. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry’s attempt to move his trial from the California district where he faces federal charges to his home state of Nebraska.

The ruling, posted online Monday, was a setback for Fortenberry, a nine-term Republican who is accused of lying to federal authorities who were investigating an illegal campaign contribution from a foreign national.

Defense attorneys had asked a judge to transfer his trial out of California, where Fortenberry received the contribution during a 2016 fundraiser in Los Angeles.

Prosecutors opposed the request, arguing that Fortenberry’s lawyers were “venue shopping” for a potentially friendlier and more Republican-leaning jury pool in Nebraska.

“Overall... the interests of justice do not weigh in favor of transferring this case,” U.S. District Court Judge Stanley Blumenfeld wrote in his ruling. “It does not appear that the trial in this case will be substantially delayed in this district or proceed sooner in Nebraska.”

Prosecutors allege that Fortenberry was aware that the donation was illegal but denied knowing it when he was interviewed by FBI agents, and that he failed to properly disclose it in campaign filings. Fortenberry has pleaded not guilty and accused prosecutors of targeting him because of his political leanings, an allegation prosecutors deny.

Blumenfeld said he weighed all the factors that judges must consider when reviewing such a request and concluded a transfer isn’t needed. He said the number of expected witnesses having to travel will be the same whether the trial is held in California or Nebraska, and many of the key events in the case took place in Los Angeles.

Blumenfeld said travel costs for all of the parties would be greater if the trial was held in Nebraska and concluded that Los Angeles is just as accessible for everyone as Omaha or Lincoln. He brushed aside defense arguments that having the trial in California would disrupt Fortenberry’s congressional work more than in Nebraska and said he wasn’t convinced that Fortenberry would be able to stand trial sooner in Nebraska, even though California’s federal court docket is more clogged.

Fortenberry’s attorneys had filed motions asking Blumenfeld to exclude evidence from the trial and transfer the case from California to Nebraska, citing Nebraska’s lighter caseload, a California jury pool that would likely skew Democratic and California pandemic restrictions that have temporarily halted jury trials until Feb. 22.

Prosecutors opposed the motions, arguing Fortenberry was “venue shopping” by seeking a trial in his home state.

Last Friday, Blumenfeld expressed extreme skepticism when one of Fortenberry’s attorneys, John Littrell, suggested that he should either rule favorably on motions that would undermine the prosecution’s case or agree to move the trial to Nebraska.

“If the court’s going to rule in our favor and dismiss the case, then it should go ahead and do that,” Littrell said. “If it’s not going to do that, then I think it can pass that on to a new judge.”

Blumenfeld said he was “rather surprised” to hear Littrell make that argument and questioned whether the attorney was being serious.

“It seems so blatantly self-serving and unprincipled that it is a bit surprising,” Blumenfeld said.

Littrell disputed that characterization, saying his argument was based on “the principle of duty of loyalty to my client” and his obligation to vigorously defend him. Littrell has argued that authorities targeted Fortenberry because of his conservative politics and deceived him, a claim prosecutors deny.

Blumenfeld also chastised both Fortenberry’s lawyers and prosecutors for creating “a lot of noise” around the politically charged case, including allegations of political bias and the motives for charging Fortenberry. Blumenfeld said he wasn’t “going to be influenced by noise.”

“I have a job to do, and I try to do that job in a way that’s legally based and principled,” he said, advising the lawyers “not to simply advocate for an extreme position that you can probably guess is going to have a low probability of success.”

Fortenberry has said through his lawyers that he wants to stand trial as quickly as possible. He faces a serious GOP primary challenge from Nebraska state Sen. Mike Flood, a former speaker of the Nebraska Legislature who has been endorsed by Gov. Pete Ricketts and former Gov. Dave Heineman.

The primary is May 10. The primary winners will face state Sen. Patty Pansing Brooks, a Democrat, in the heavily Republican 1st Congressional District.

Fortenberry’s attorneys have also said they want a memory expert to testify about the congressman’s state of mind when he told federal authorities that he didn’t recall being warned about the illegal donation.