Updates to our Terms of Use

We are updating our Terms of Use. Please carefully review the updated Terms before proceeding to our website.

Sunday, September 8, 2024 | Back issues
Courthouse News Service Courthouse News Service

Meadows brings fight for federal forum against Georgia election charges to SCOTUS

The high court appeal is Mark Meadows’ last hope for transferring his criminal case to federal court.

WASHINGTON (CN) — Former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows turned to the Supreme Court in a final attempt to move his Georgia election interference charges to federal court.

Meadows asked the justices to reverse an appeals court ruling preventing his case from moving to federal court. The ex-chief of staff warned that without the justices’ intervention, states could weaponize their prosecutorial power against former federal officials.

“Inevitably, at least some of the nation’s 2,330 chief local prosecutors, many elected by their constituents, will view the decision as an invitation to start preparing their ‘day-after’ indictments, ready to be deployed against locally unpopular federal officials immediately following a change in administration,” Meadows wrote in a petition provided by his attorneys dated Friday.

A unanimous panel on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Meadow’s transfer bid in December, finding that his official authority did not extend to a conspiracy to overturn valid election results. Meadow’s appeal was initially due at the high court in May, but he was granted two time extensions by Justice Clarence Thomas, a George H.W. Bush appointee.

Meadows was one of 18 individuals, including former President Donald Trump, indicted by a Fulton County grand jury of conspiring to unlawfully change the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia.  

The former chief of staff failed to convince two lower courts that the federal officer removal law warrants moving his state criminal prosecution to a Georgia federal court. Meadows claims he has federal immunity from the charges, which relate to his actions to assist the president as his chief of staff.

Meadows was indicted for conspiracy in violation of Georgia’s anti-racketeering law and soliciting an oath violation from a public officer.

Prosecutors claim Meadows was involved in meetings to advance election fraud in state legislatures. They also say Meadows facilitated Trump’s call with Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger where the president pushed Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to overturn Biden’s victory.

Meadows pleaded not guilty to all charges.

In his Supreme Court petition, Meadows claimed that his transfer motion was denied because he no longer held federal office. Meadows said the justices’ recent endorsement of broad immunity for former presidents reinforced his immunity claim even though his service ended.

“If former officers cannot remove at all, and if even a current chief of staff cannot remove a case arising out of acts taken in the White House in service of the president, then the floodgates are open, and ‘nightmare scenarios’ will not take long to materialize,” Meadows wrote.

Such scenarios include retaliatory prosecutions under state criminal laws. Meadows warned that the prospects of such charges are demonstrated by calls for retribution for lawsuits against Trump.

“In short, tomorrow’s retaliation is distorting today’s decisionmaking, potentially ‘discourag[ing] federal officers from faithfully performing their duties,’” Meadows wrote. “That risk is even more pronounced when it comes to ‘potential criminal liability, and the peculiar public opprobrium that attaches to criminal proceedings.’”

While the appeals court ruled against Meadows’ transfer, two members of the panel suggested that congressional action was needed to avoid any nightmare scenarios. Meadows said that wasn’t necessary.

“The better course is to grant certiorari, restore removal protection to former officers, and ensure that Meadows is not the first White House Chief of Staff in history to be deprived of a federal forum in which to defend against criminal charges arising out of actions taken in support of the president,” Meadows wrote.

Follow @KelseyReichmann
Categories / Appeals, Courts, Elections

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Loading...