A group of Haitians in Ohio were so upset by former President Donald Trump and Sen. J.D. Vance's remarks about migrants eating animals that they sought to have the two Republicans face arrest warrants. 

According to Breitbart, the silly notion was shot down hard by an Ohio court, which said there's no probable cause to issue arrest warrants for Trump and Vance on what would be misdemeanor charges.

A panel of judges had referred the case initiated by the Haitian Bridge Alliance to country prosecutors, who made quick work of having it tossed in the trash, where it belongs.

Trump and Vance have both pointed to the videos and evidence that purportedly confirm that there have been migrants in the area who have eaten domestic animals and geese from local ponds.

What's going on?

The request for legal action brought by the group happened in the wake of Trump's first debate after he claimed that Haitian migrants were eating people's pets.

"In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats, they’re eating the pets of the people that live there," Trump said at the debate against Kamala Harris last month.

The Associated Press noted:

The Haitian Bridge Alliance, a nonprofit group representing the Haitian community, last month invoked a private-citizen right to file charges over the chaos and threats experienced since Trump first spread false claims about legal immigrants there during a presidential debate.

The group's attorney argued that Trump and Vance are guilty of "willful flouting of criminal law."

"Their persistence and relentlessness, even in the face of the governor and the mayor saying this is false, that shows intent,” said the group’s attorney, Subodh Chandra of the Cleveland-based Chandra Law Firm. “It’s knowing, willful flouting of criminal law."

Breitbart added:

In the case filed by the Haitian Bridge Alliance, the group reportedly calls for “charges of felony inducing panic, disrupting public services,” and “making false alarms,” among others, according to the Springfield News-Sun.

Free speech wins

Ultimately, the court handed off the case to prosecutors, citing free speech concerns, especially political free speech.

The judges ruled that “particular consideration should be given to ‘the strong constitutional protections afforded to speech, and political speech in particular,” adding that due to the presidential election being “less than 35 days away,” Breitbart noted.

"Due to the proximity of the election, and the contentiousness concerning the immigration policies of both candidates, the Court cannot presume the good faith nature of the affidavits," the judges added.

It's unclear whether the group will continue to pursue charges.