Judges urge Meadows’ attorney to move the Georgia case to federal court

A lawyer for Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff under former President Donald J. Trump, faced tough questions from a panel of judges on Friday as Mr. Meadows renewed his effort to dismiss an election interference case in Georgia from the move state court to federal court. .

The appeals court’s three-judge panel heard brief oral arguments from a Georgia prosecutor and a lawyer for Mr. Meadows about the jurisdiction of the case, which accuses Mr. Meadows of working with a group of people to sway the election of Mr Trump in 2020. loss in the state.

The justices asked pointed questions of both sides but seemed particularly skeptical of arguments from Mr. Meadows, who claims the charges against him relate to actions he took as a federal official and thus should be heard in federal court.

Moving the case to federal court would bring benefits to Mr. Meadows, including a jury pool from a larger geographic area with slightly more support for Mr. Trump. But in September, a federal judge sided with prosecutors: to write that Mr. Meadows’ conduct, as detailed in the indictment, was “unrelated to his role as White House Chief of Staff or his executive branch.”

Mr. Meadows appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, where the three-judge panel — made up of two Democratic-appointed judges and one Republican-appointed judge — peppered lawyers with questions Friday in a ornate courtroom in the downtown area. Atlanta.

In her questioning of Mr. Meadows’ lawyer, Judge Nancy Abudu, an appointee of President Biden, said that Mr. Meadows’ own testimony, in August, appeared to broadly define what actions were part of his official duties as chief of staff.

“The testimony that was given did not, in fact, give any extreme limits to what his duties were,” Judge Abudu said. “So it’s almost like he could do anything in that capacity as long as he can say it’s on behalf of the president.”

But Mr. Meadows’ attorney, George J. Terwilliger III, countered that Mr. Meadows did not need to set those boundaries but merely “make a connection” with the duties of his federal job. Mr. Terwilliger’s argument focused on the idea that it would be inappropriate to hold the case in state court because it would require a state judge to decide important issues involving federal law, such as what the role of the White House chief of staff.

“That doesn’t make sense,” Mr. Terwilliger said. “These are federal questions that must be resolved in federal court.”

In addition to Judge Abudu, the panel included Chief Circuit Judge William Pryor, an appointee of President George W. Bush, and Judge Robin Rosenbaum, an appointee of President Barack Obama. The case concerns the concept of “removal,” which essentially means transferring a case from state to federal court; if the case were dropped, Mr. Meadows would face the same charges.

The case against Mr. Meadows stems from a lengthy investigation by Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis, which led to her charging 19 people — including Mr. Trump — with racketeering and other charges related to their efforts to detain Mr. Trump. in power. Four of these defendants have reached plea deals with Ms. Willis’ office, and in addition to Mr. Meadows, four other defendants are seeking to have their cases moved to federal courts, including Jeffrey Clark, a former high-ranking Justice Department official. Mr Meadows, Mr Trump and Mr Clark have pleaded not guilty.

To advance his case to federal court, Mr. Meadows’ attorneys must demonstrate that his actions — as alleged in the indictment — were within the scope of his duties as chief of staff, and that Mr. Meadows still qualifies as a federal officer, even though he no longer holds that position.

Lawyers from Ms. Willis’ office have argued that Mr. Meadows took political actions in service of Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign, rather than acting in his role as chief of staff. Donald Wakeford, a top prosecutor in Ms. Willis’ office, also argued Friday that Mr. Meadows no longer has the ability to take his case to federal court because he is no longer a federal officer.

The justices presented several hypotheses to Mr. Wakeford about whether this interpretation could allow states to indict unpopular federal officials soon after they left office. Mr. Wakeford argued that, regardless of such concerns, the relevant federal law does not indicate that former federal officials can take their cases out of state court.

Among the criminal acts listed in the indictment against Mr. Meadows is a Jan. 2, 2021, phone call between Mr. Trump and Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state, in which Mr. Trump said he nearly stole another 12,000 Trump votes, enough to reverse his defeat. Mr. Meadows testified in August that Mr. Trump instructed him to arrange that phone call.

In December 2020 also Mr Meadows made a surprise visit to Cobb County, Georgia, accompanied by Secret Service agents, with the intention of reviewing an audit underway there. Local officials refused to let him do this because it was not open to the public.

Whatever the appeals court decides, lawyers for both sides could ask the Supreme Court to take up the case, potentially embroiling the nation’s highest court in a contentious political case during an election year.

The challenge that Mr. Meadows is being confronted, it was summarized by Judge Rosenbaum. “In his view, it appears everything was within his official duties,” she said during the proceedings. “And that just can’t be right.”