Country star John Rich celebrated after winning a lawsuit against a concert promoter who sued him during the pandemic after the singer canceled a show at a venue that changed its policy about unvaccinated attendees.

The 49-year-old country singer-songwriter shared the news on Thursday with his hundreds of thousands of Twitter followers.

“During the lockdowns, I stated I’d NEVER play a concert venue that forced fans to show their ‘papers’ for entry concerning COVID,” Rich tweeted.

“One venue added that rule after I agreed to play, so I cancelled it,” the country star added. “The promoter sued me. He LOST the case today! Happy to say I never bent the knee.”

During the lockdowns, I stated I'd NEVER play a concert venue that forced fans to show their "papers" for entry concerning Covid. One venue added that rule after I agreed to play, so I cancelled it. The promoter sued me. He LOST the case today! Happy to say I never bent the knee.

— John Rich🇺🇸 (@johnrich) January 19, 2023

Reading through the responses to the “Save A Horse” hitmaker’s post, most of those who follow him celebrated the singer’s victory along with Rich, thanking him for “sticking to his principles,” and for “standing up to tyranny!”

Thank you for sticking to your principles. Stands like this are few and far between with high profile people who have a lot to lose.

— Scott Morefield (@SKMorefield) January 19, 2023

we all need to stand our ground, great job

— 6 (@jbfranklin64) January 19, 2023

Thank you for standing up to tyranny! We are with you!! 🇺🇸🙏🏻❤️ pic.twitter.com/9lHlDCYPLg

— Jana (@JanaMcadams) January 19, 2023

Despite the comments of praise, there were those who hit back at the singer’s post, threatening to never attend one of his shows again.

“I won’t be attending any of your concerts anytime soon,” one person wrote. “With that attitude, the likely attendees are going to be a concentrated group of anti-vaxxers. It sounds like a great place to catch COVID. To other John Rich fans: if you’re smart, you will stay away too.”

Sounds like a plan👍

— John Rich🇺🇸 (@johnrich) January 19, 2023

The “Progress” hitmaker responded by simply writing back, “Sounds like a plan.”

The conservative country star has spoken out against the lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and has been especially critical of President Joe Biden’s top medical adviser and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci.

When Fauci announced in August that he was resigning from his role in the federal government in December, Rich was one of many who reacted to the news, as previously reported.

Fauci has resigned. I'm guessing it's so he has time to prepare with his lawyers for his appearance at the 2023 Nuremberg Code trials.

— John Rich🇺🇸 (@johnrich) August 22, 2022

“Fauci has resigned,” the country star tweeted. “I’m guessing it’s so he has time to prepare with his lawyers for his appearance at the 2023 Nuremberg Code trials.”

Related: John Rich Posts Patriotic Video Of Concertgoers Singing After He And Country Stars Raise An Incredible Amount For Hurricane Victims

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley laid into the Supreme Court on Thursday after reports revealed that they had been unable to determine who leaked an early draft of their decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

The court released a report Thursday afternoon — and despite calling the leak a “misguided attempt at protest” and a “grave assault on the judicial process,” they said that investigators had analyzed evidence and interviewed anyone who may have had or seen a copy of the draft, yet still came up empty: “The team has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence.”

Turley made it clear that he was not impressed, saying in a brief Twitter thread that he believed a failure to identify and punish whoever had leaked the draft would only lead to more leaks in the future.

“The Supreme Court’s report indicates that they cannot isolate the culprit among the over 80 possible suspects for the Dobbs leak. It is an admission that is almost as chilling as the leak itself,” Turley began.

…It will likely revive concerns over whether the FBI should have been asked to take the lead on the investigation. The Court is only a few blocks from the world's leading forensic investigatory body…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) January 19, 2023

“It will likely revive concerns over whether the FBI should have been asked to take the lead on the investigation. The Court is only a few blocks from the world’s leading forensic investigatory body,” he added.

Turley went on to say that anyone who might feel compelled to leak a future decision would not have any reason to fear repercussions, adding, “Thus far, the culprit succeeded in not just leaking the opinion but evading detection.”

…The proposed changes in security are unlikely to meaningfully reduce the danger of such leaks. The nature of the Court's work requires a free flow of drafts and memoranda. That is why we hope to achieve through deterrence what was not achieved through ethics…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) January 19, 2023

He then argued that the court’s suggested security changes would not do much to prevent similar leaks in the future — but it might discourage the justices and clerks from freely circulating memos and decision drafts as they have in the past.

Turley’s overall conclusion was simple: a failure to find and punish the leaker would only make future leakers feel as though they are justified in taking similar actions whenever they saw fit to do so.

“In this age of rage, this danger will only grow. Someone felt that they had license to leak. Some others may now feel that they have the impunity to do so,” he said.