Mark Meadows, former chief of staff to former President Donald Trump, is continuing his months-long effort to bring the Fulton County criminal case against him to federal court, asking the Supreme Court in a new appeal to intervene in a lower court ruling he calls “dangerously” wrong.
In a filing dated Friday, Meadows’ lawyers argue that the lower court erred in denying Meadows’ request to move his case from state to federal court, in part by pointing to the court’s recent landmark decision granting Trump some immunity for official acts.
“Just as protecting former officers’ immunity is essential to ensuring that current and future officers are not deterred from serving enthusiastically, so too is the promise of a federal forum in which to argue that defense,” the 47-page filing states.
Meadows has been trying for months to bring his case to federal court under a law that provides for the elimination of criminal charges when a person is accused of actions he or she allegedly committed as a federal official acting “under color” of his or her office.
Mark Meadows, former chief of staff to former U.S. President Donald Trump, arrives for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber of Representatives on Capitol Hill, July 24, 2024.
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
A lower court and an appeals court both rejected that claim, with one judge writing that Meadows’ actions charged in the indictment “were taken on behalf of the Trump campaign” and not in his official capacity.
Meadows has now appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the appeals court’s ruling that the law does not apply to former officers “defies the text of the law, context, history and common sense.”
“The (trial court’s) decision is not only wrong, it’s dangerous,” Meadows’ lawyers continued, again referring to the Trump immunity decision. “The Court should grant reconsideration, or at least reverse and remand the case in light of Trump.”
The Fulton County election interference case against Trump and 14 others is largely on hold pending an appeal on the disqualification issue. An appeals court has scheduled oral arguments for December.
Meadows has pleaded not guilty.
The landmark Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, to which Meadows’ lawyers refer, defined the limits of presidential power, making clear for the first time that former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity for “essential” official acts, but have no immunity for “unofficial” acts.
ABC News
