Supreme Court denies Mark Meadows’ attempt to shift Georgia election case
The former chief of staff for Donald Trump claimed that federal courts would better address his immunity claims.
WASHINGTON – Mark Meadows, the former chief of staff to Donald Trump, has been unsuccessful in his attempt to transfer his Georgia election interference case to federal court, where he hoped to avoid prosecution more easily.
The Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that it would not review a prior ruling from a lower court that dismissed Meadows’ request.
Meadows is facing charges alongside Trump and 17 others for what prosecutors describe as a broad conspiracy aimed at overturning President Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory in Georgia. He contended that the actions leading to his charges fell under his federal duties in the White House.
His legal team argued that federal courts are the correct venue to interpret how the Supreme Court’s ruling in July regarding presidential immunity should influence his situation.
In response, prosecutors in Georgia argued that the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling specifically pertains to presidents and does not extend to Meadows.
Additionally, Chief Judge William Pryor of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stated last year that state courts can adequately assess any claims of federal immunity.
In September, a federal judge declined a similar request from Meadows to move his criminal charges in Arizona to federal court.
Meadows, along with a few other defendants, argues that their cases should be considered in federal court due to their status as federal officials when the alleged criminal acts took place. He provided testimony stating that his responsibilities included scheduling meetings and coordinating with Trump as part of his duties.
Federal regulations allow certain federal officials to transfer their state-level cases to federal court—a practice stemming from the Reconstruction period when the federal government was wary of southern state officials prosecuting federal agents for their actions.
However, the appeals court determined that the statute does not apply to former federal officials since criminal charges against them would not disrupt a federal administration.
Pryor noted, “A state prosecution of a former official does not interfere with ongoing federal operations—for instance, it cannot be argued that Georgia’s case against Meadows obstructs the current administration.”
Furthermore, he argued that Meadows’ role as chief of staff “did not encompass actions tied to an alleged conspiracy to overturn legitimate election outcomes.”
Meadows is facing serious charges including racketeering and pressuring Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to violate his official duties during a call on January 2, 2021, where Trump urged him to “find” enough votes to surpass Biden’s margin of victory.
The indictment details that Meadows attended a White House meeting with Trump and Michigan lawmakers, communicated with Pennsylvania lawmakers, sought a memo about disrupting and postponing the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021, attempted to watch a private audit of Georgia’s voting, and facilitated the call with Raffensperger.
In his testimony during last year’s U.S. District Court hearing, Meadows claimed that organizing calls and meetings for the president fell within his job responsibilities. However, prosecutors and judges pointed out that Meadows did not define any boundaries for his duties.
Currently, the Georgia trial is paused as the state Court of Appeals deliberates on whether to dismiss District Attorney Fani Willis from the case, following Trump and others’ requests due to her personal relationship with another prosecutor.
The trial’s future remains uncertain, particularly after Trump was re-elected this month.
