ATLANTA (CN) — A unanimous 11th Circuit panel on Monday rejected an attempt by former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to move the charges against him in the Georgia election interference case to federal court, upholding a lower court’s decision to leave the case in state court.
Meadows and 18 others, including former President Donald Trump, were accused in an August indictment handed up by a Fulton County grand jury of knowingly joining “a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election” in then-President Trump’s favor.
The Atlanta-based appeals court rejected arguments made by Meadows during a hearing last week claiming that the acts charged in the indictment were related to his official responsibilities as chief of staff and should therefore be protected from state claims.
“Simply put, whatever the precise contours of Meadows' official authority, that authority did not extend to an alleged conspiracy to overturn valid election results,” Chief U.S. Circuit Judge William Pryor wrote in a 35-page ruling.
Meadows sought to remove his state criminal prosecution to Georgia federal court under the federal officer removal law. The law allows current officers of the United States to remove a criminal prosecution against them to federal court when they are charged for actions they undertook while carrying out official federal duties.
A Georgia federal judge first rejected Meadows' request in September, ruling that his charged conduct was not performed “under color” of his office.
Affirming the judge's decision, Pryor says in Monday's ruling that the removal law does not apply to former federal officers, “and even if it did, the events giving rise to this criminal action were not related to Meadows’s official duties.”
Meadows is not a federal “officer” under the law, the George W. Bush appointee wrote. And even if he were, Pryor said, “his participation in an alleged conspiracy to overturn a presidential election was not related to his official duties.”
Pryor was joined in the opinion by U.S. Circuit Judges Robin Rosenbaum, a Barack Obama appointee, and Nancy Abudu, a Joe Biden appointee.
An attorney for Meadows did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday afternoon.
Meadows faces two charges: conspiracy in violation of Georgia’s anti-racketeering law and soliciting the violation of oath by a public officer, a felony. The indictment alleged that Meadows joined and committed eight acts to further the conspiracy to change the election outcome in Trump’s favor.
The second charge against him stems from Meadows’ involvement in Trump’s infamous Jan. 2, 2021, phone call, in which the former president pressed Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find" enough votes to overturn Biden's victory in the state. The indictment accuses Meadows of “soliciting” Raffensperger to violate his oath of office by altering the certified returns for presidential electors.
Meadows pleaded not guilty to the charges in September.
The former chief of staff has argued in court that his job was a round-the-clock responsibility which called for him to be “on duty” at all hours, even when away from the White House.
But the 11th Circuit panel was unconvinced.
“We cannot rubber stamp Meadows’ legal opinion that the President’s chief of staff has unfettered authority," Pryor wrote, adding, “At bottom, whatever the chief of staff’s role with respect to state election administration, that role does not include altering valid election results in favor of a particular candidate."
Although the decision was unanimous, a separate concurrence authored by Rosenbaum and joined by Abudu urged Congress to amend the federal officer removal law to include former federal officers.
Rosenbaum called the failure to do so “bad policy.”
“The government’s interests in protecting against rogue state prosecutions of federal officers for carrying out their official duties do not evaporate as soon as a particular officer leaves her post,” Rosenbaum wrote. “Nor do they evaporate upon a change in presidential administration. So the protections for federal officers likewise should not evaporate when they leave their government employment.”
Rosenbaum wrote that national leaders may stop taking significant, but potentially unpopular, actions while in office for fear of later state prosecution.
Follow @KaylaGoggin_CNS
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.
Additional Reads
-
-
GOP sues Nevada over late mail-in ballots May 3, 2024