MADISON, Wis. — A split Wisconsin Supreme Court on Thursday refused to hear President Donald Trump’s lawsuit attempting to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the battleground state, saying the case must first wind its way through lower courts.

The legal defeat on a 4-3 ruling was the latest in a string of losses for Trump’s post-election lawsuits. Judges in multiple battleground states have rejected his claims of fraud or irregularities. Dissenting conservative justices said the decision would forever “stain” the outcome of the election.

Trump asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to disqualify more than 221,000 ballots in the state’s two biggest Democratic counties, alleging irregularities in the way absentee ballots were administered. His lawsuit echoed claims that were earlier rejected by election officials in those counties during a recount that barely affected Biden’s winning margin of about 20,700 votes.

Trump had wanted the conservative-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case directly, saying there wasn’t enough time to wage the legal battle by starting first with a lower court given the looming Dec. 14 date when presidential electors cast their votes. But attorneys for Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and the state Department of Justice argued the the lawsuit had to start with lower courts.

Supporters react after it was announced that President-elect Joe Biden defeated President Trump at a rally in Milwaukee, on Nov. 7. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has refused to hear President Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn his election loss to Biden in the battleground state. AP Photo/Morry Gash, File

Swing Justice Brian Hagedorn joined three liberal justices in denying the petition.

It was not immediately known if Trump would still pursue the case through lower courts. His campaign spokeswoman did not immediately return a message seeking comment. Trump filed a similar lawsuit in federal court on Wednesday.

Hagedorn said the law was clear that Trump must start his lawsuit in lower courts where factual disputes can be worked out.

“We do well as a judicial body to abide by time-tested judicial norms, even — and maybe especially — in high profile cases,” Hagedorn wrote. “Following this law is not disregarding our duty, as some of my colleagues suggest. It is following the law.”

Chief Justice Patience Roggensack, in her dissent, said she would have taken the case and referred it to lower courts for factual findings, which could then be reported back to the Supreme Court for a ruling.

Conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote that the court “forsakes its duty” by not determining whether elections officials complied with the law and the inaction will undermine the public’s confidence in elections.

“While some will either celebrate or decry the court’s inaction based upon the impact on their preferred candidate, the importance of this case transcends the results of this particular election,” she wrote in a dissent joined by Roggensack and Justice Annette Ziegler. “The majority’s failure to act leaves an indelible stain on our most recent election.”

Trump’s lawsuit challenged procedures that have been in place for years and never been found to be illegal.

He claimed there were thousands of absentee ballots without a written application on file. He argued that the electronic log created when a voter requests a ballot online — the way the vast majority are requested — doesn’t meet the letter of the law.

He also challenged ballots where election clerks filled in missing address information on the certification envelope where the ballot is inserted — a practice that has long been accepted and that the state elections commission told clerks was OK.

Roggensack said the Supreme Court owed it to the public to determine whether that advice was correct, especially for future elections.

“However, doing so does not necessarily lead to striking absentee ballots that were cast by following incorrect WEC advice,” she wrote. “The remedy Petitioners seek may be out of reach for a number of reasons.”

Trump also challenged absentee ballots where voters declared themselves to be “indefinitely confined,” a status that exempts them from having to show photo identification to cast a ballot, and one that was used much more heavily this year due to the pandemic. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in March ruled that it was up to individual voters to determine their status.

Two other lawsuits filed by conservatives are still pending with the Wisconsin Supreme Court court seeking to invalidate ballots. In addition to Trump’s federal lawsuit, there is a another one in federal court with similar claims from Sidney Powell, a conservative attorney who was removed from Trump’s legal team.

Wisconsin this week certified Biden’s victory, setting the stage for a Democratic slate of electors chosen earlier to cast the state’s 10 electoral votes for him.