US Judge Rejects Mark Meadows’ Request to Move Georgia Case to Federal Court – A federal judge, Steve Jones, rejected former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’ request to move his Georgia 2020 election interference case from state to federal court. Meadows had argued that certain actions he was charged with fell within the realm of his official duties.
Consequently, the decision by Judge Jones, issued on Friday, ensures that the prosecution of Meadows, led by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, will remain in Atlanta’s superior court. Unless Meadows chooses to appeal and the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit overturns the ruling, the case will proceed in the state court.
“The Court finds insufficient evidence to establish that the gravamen, or a heavy majority of overt acts alleged against Meadows relate to his role as White House Chief of Staff,” the judge wrote in an unusually detailed and extensive 49-page decision.
People Also Read: Rep. Nancy Pelosi is Running for Reelection
“Even if Meadows took on tasks that mirror the duties that he carried out when acting in his official role,” the judge wrote, “he has failed to demonstrate how the election-related activities that serve as the basis for the charges in the indictment are related to any of his official acts.”
In the previous month, a grand jury in the Atlanta area issued a comprehensive 41-count indictment against Donald Trump and 18 others, including Mark Meadows. This indictment alleged that they violated Georgia’s state RICO statute in their attempts to undermine the 2020 election results.
Meadows had attempted to transfer the case to federal court, contending that the extensive racketeering charges were related to his regular responsibilities as the White House chief of staff. He argued that this conferred immunity from prosecution and barred him from being prosecuted at the state level.
However, the judge, in a detailed 49-page ruling, rejected Meadows’ arguments. The judge concluded that Meadows had not demonstrated that he was acting within the scope of his job description when he engaged in efforts to benefit Trump as a political candidate rather than in his capacity as president.
“The color of the Office of the White House Chief of Staff did not include working with or working for the Trump campaign,” the judge wrote, “except for simply coordinating the President’s schedule, traveling with the President to his campaign events, and redirecting communications to the campaign.”
The motivation behind the decision to request a transfer to federal court is perceived to have two main aspects: First, it would broaden the pool of potential jurors beyond the predominantly Democratic-leaning Atlanta area. Second, a federal judge might be less inclined to show deference to local prosecutors in contrast to judges presiding in the Fulton County Superior Court.
People Also Read: Trump Insists he Will ‘Absolutely’ Testify at His Criminal Trials
For several weeks, Trump has been contemplating whether to pursue a similar motion for removal. It was reported that Trump’s legal team was closely monitoring Meadows’ situation to gauge whether they should submit a request, taking into account their statutory deadline at the end of September.
Meadows’ recent legal setback exacerbates his legal challenges within Fulton County, as experts in law suggest that his usefulness as a cooperating witness may have waned. Additionally, this ruling carries ominous implications for Trump, as his prospects for removal appear less favorable in comparison to those of his former chief of staff.
In a broad sense, Judge Jones determined that Meadows couldn’t have engaged in political actions as part of his official duties because the U.S. Constitution does not establish a foundation for the executive branch to involve itself in state election and post-election procedures.
To ascertain Meadows’ jurisdiction, the judge applied the Hatch Act, which explicitly forbids executive branch officials like Meadows from using their official authority to manipulate or disrupt election outcomes through partisan political activities.
The indictment outlined Meadows as being involved in several overt acts aimed at advancing the racketeering scheme. Meadows argued that even if one of these acts fell within the scope of his responsibilities as chief of staff, it warranted the case being moved to federal court.
People Also Read: Former Trump White House Adviser Found Guilty of Contempt of Congress
However, the judge interpreted the removal statute differently, determining that a single overt act falling within his duties was insufficient for federal court jurisdiction. The pivotal question revolved around the core activities that constituted Meadows’ participation in the racket and whether these activities, as a whole, were linked to his federal office’s scope. Ultimately, the judge concluded that they were not.
Moreover, even if the remaining overt acts were framed as routine chief of staff tasks, such as making phone calls or preparing meetings for presidential advice, the judge asserted that the underlying nature of these actions was political, thus falling outside the purview of his official duties.