Former White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, has been denied his request to move his Georgia trial on election racketeering charges to federal court, according to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court unanimously ruled that a federal statute allowing for the movement of cases to federal court does not apply to former officials like Meadows.
In their ruling, the judges stated that a state prosecution of a former officer does not interfere with ongoing federal functions. They also pointed out that Georgia’s prosecution of Meadows has not hindered the current administration. Meadows argued that his alleged crimes were part of his federal job, but the judges found that the charges against him were not related to his official duties.
During the trial, Meadows had testified that arranging calls and setting up meetings for the president were part of his job. However, prosecutors and judges noted that he offered no limits to what his job entailed, casting doubt on his argument.
Clark Cunningham, a law professor, expects Meadows to ask the Supreme Court to review the case. The ruling sets new legal ground by stating that former officials cannot move a state case to federal court for prosecution.
Meadows has been charged with racketeering and with soliciting Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to violate his oath of office. So far, four defendants in the alleged conspiracy have pleaded guilty, while Meadows and others, including Donald Trump, have pleaded not guilty.
The indictment against Meadows describes his involvement in various activities related to overturning the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia. Four other co-defendants, including former assistant attorney general Jeffrey Clark, have also argued that their cases should be heard in federal court, but like Meadows, they have been denied.
The denial of Meadows’ request to move his trial to federal court highlights the challenges faced by former officials in seeking special treatment. It also emphasizes the divide between state and federal jurisdictions when it comes to prosecuting allegations of election fraud. The implications of this ruling could have far-reaching effects on future cases involving former officials and their ability to seek jurisdictional changes.
“Zombie enthusiast. Subtly charming travel practitioner. Webaholic. Internet expert.”