Appeals court voices skepticism of Meadows bid to shift from Georgia court

A three-judge federal appeals court panel appeared unconvinced Friday that Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows can move his charges in the Georgia 2020 election racketeering case to federal court.

Meadows is charged alongside former President Trump and more than a dozen others over accusations they unlawfully attempted to overturn President Biden’s victory in Georgia.

Arguing that the charges fall within his capacity as chief of staff, Meadows contends his prosecution should be transferred out of state court, a strategy that would provide him a pathway to attempt to assert immunity. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) opposes the effort.

If successful, moving courts would also broaden the jury pool to less-heavily Democratic areas of Georgia and have Meadows’s case overseen by a federal judge. It would additionally doom chances of the trial being televised.

During the roughly 40-minute oral argument Friday, the three-judge panel raised concerns about Meadows’s assertions. Chief Judge William Pryor raised skepticism that former federal officials — as opposed to current ones — are eligible to move their charges.

“It might well be that Congress could rationally assume there’s a heightened reason for removal where you’re dealing with a current officer, because it involves ongoing operations of the federal government,” said Pryor, a President George W. Bush appointee.

“But we ordinarily have a presumption of a separate sovereign of a state and its courts are equally faithful to the Constitution and the law, and can be trusted,” Pryor continued. “And that heightened concern might not exist, where you have a former officer, because it doesn’t involve the ongoing operations of the government.”

Prosecutors charged Meadows and 18 others with racketeering for allegedly entering a months-long criminal conspiracy to keep Trump in power following the 2020 election. It is one of four indictments Trump faces.

Meadows also faces a charge of soliciting a public officer to violate their oath for his participation in an infamous call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R), in which Trump asked the state official to “find” additional votes for him. Meadows pleaded not guilty.

Pryor later said he didn’t see how the indictment is “in any way interfering with the Biden administration.”

“It’s not interfering with the Biden administration, but it is interfering with the administration of federal law in federal courts, and that’s what the statute is designed to accomplish,” responded George Terwilliger, Meadows’s attorney.

Not all of the judges were as skeptical as Pyror, however, of applying the statute to former officials.

“Doesn’t that create a chilling effect, in some way, on people who might consider running for office or people who are in office, and maybe they think twice about what they’re going to do, because they are concerned about being indicted later and not being able to have a trial in a federal forum?” Judge Robin Rosenbaum, a President Obama appointee, pressed prosecutors. 

Donald Wakeford, chief senior district attorney in Fulton County, said he understood the concern but still pushed back.

“I would refer to the great weight of history to demonstrate that doesn’t happen. That hasn’t happened. These are exceptional circumstances,” Wakeford said.

The appeal follows U.S. District Judge Steve Jones, an Obama appointee, rejecting Meadows’s attempt to move courts in September. Jones found many of the allegations were political activities outside of the scope of Meadows’s White House job.

Beyond the former official issue, the judges also slung piercing questions about the limits of Meadows’s argument that the allegations at issue were part of his job.

“The testimony that was provided essentially didn’t provide any outer limits to what his duties were, so it’s almost as if he could [say] anything in that capacity, as long as he could say it was on behalf of the president,” said Judge Nancy Abudu, a Biden appointee.

“My question is how do you reconcile, solely for purposes of removal, the acknowledgement of that behavior with the clear prohibitions of the Hatch Act?” Abudu asked Meadows’s attorney.

Meadows is one of five co-defendants in the case attempting to move their charges. Jones similarly rejected the attempts lodged by Trump Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark and three co-defendants who are charged over signing documents purporting to be Georgia’s valid electors.

They also are all appealing, but their cases are proceeding on a slower track.