A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that denied former Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows’ request to move his charges in the Georgia election interference case to federal court.
Meadows argued that the charges against him related to the scope of his official duties and that he had “colorable” federal defenses. This pertains to a federal law, 28 USC § 1442 (a)(1), which allows cases at the state level against federal officers to be moved to a federal court if they involve acts under the “color” of their official duties. However, the law specifies that such acts must be vested with, or appear to be vested with, the authority off that office.
The court first considered whether this law applies to former federal officers and concluded that it does not as the removal statute does not mention former officers. It also evaluated whether Meadows’ alleged criminal acts were related to his role as the White House Chief of Staff. This involved examining precedents on how to meet the scope of removal requirements, which demand a “causal connection” between the charged conduct and asserted official authority.
Pertaining to this case, Meadows, together with former President Donald Trump and 17 others, were indicted under Georgia’s Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for attempts to keep Trump in office after his election loss to Joe Biden in 2020. They were also charged with solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer.
The Eleventh Circuit concluded that based on the factual evidence, Meadows was not acting within the scope of his office and had not met the “quite low” threshold for removal to a federal court proceeding. The court noted that the White House Chief of Staff role did not include the alleged efforts by Meadows to work for the Trump campaign and engaging in political activity exceeded the office’s limits.
In his initial ruling, US District Court Judge Jones emphasized a strong judicial policy against federal interference with state criminal proceedings. The appellate court upheld this view, reiterating the state’s right to handle matters within its domain and that executive power does not extend to overseeing states’ elections, as stated in the Supremacy Clause.