Mark Meadows seeks Supreme Court intervention in bid for immunity from Georgia election subversion prosecution
“It is hard to imagine a case in which the need for a federal forum is more pressing than one that requires resolving novel questions about the duties and powers of one of the most important federal offices in the Nation,” Meadows’ lawyers wrote in the new filing, which pointed to the justices’ recent ruling that gave Trump some immunity in the federal election subversion prosecution.
The US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said last year that the Georgia prosecution against Meadows should move forward in state court, concluding that former federal officials are not covered by that statute “removing” state cases against government officials to federal court. Chief Judge William Pryor’s opinion for the court also said that “the events giving rise to this criminal action were not related Meadows’s official duties.”
Since that December ruling, Meadows has obtained multiple extensions on his deadline to ask the Supreme Court to review the dispute. In the meantime, the high court’s conservative majority handed down the immunity ruling earlier this month that said Trump had at least “presumptive” immunity for any of his official acts as president that were targeted in the federal criminal charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith. That case, which was brought in Washington, DC, will go back to the trial court for the judge to sort out which alleged acts in Smith’s indictment are subject to presidential immunity under the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Meadows’ new filing repeatedly referred to the Trump ruling, with his lawyers writing that “a White House Chief of Staff facing criminal charges based on actions relating to his work for the President of the United States should not be a close call—especially now that this Court has recognized that federal immunity impacts what evidence can be considered, not just what conduct can form the basis for liability.”
Meadows also used the Trump immunity ruling to argue that, in his case, his status as a former official should not affect his ability to move the proceedings to federal court.
“Just as immunity protection for former officers is critical to ensuring that current and future officers are not deterred from enthusiastic service, so too is the promise of a federal forum in which to litigate that defense,” Meadows wrote.
His lawyers told the justices that if they were not willing to give a full review of Meadows’ case, they should at least wipe away last year’s 11th Circuit ruling and send the case back down for lower courts to reconsider in light of the Trump immunity opinion.
The Georgia case is at a standstill while an appeals court considers ethics allegations against Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis — an issue that will not be resolved before the election.
CNN’s John Fritze contributed to this report.
Despite the ruling by the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals last year to keep the Georgia prosecution against Meadows in state court, Meadows' new filing argues that the recent Supreme Court ruling granting Trump some immunity in federal election subversion proceedings could have implications for his case, thereby necessitating a review by the federal court in politics-related matters.
Furthermore, Meadows and his lawyers highlight the importance of a federal forum in his case, as they believe that immunity protection for former officials and the promise of a federal court to litigate defenses are crucial for current and future officers, thereby emphasizing the role of politics in these proceedings.
