A judge is expected to decide whether to transfer the charges against Mark Meadows, a co-defendant from the 2020 Georgia election case to federal court. The ruling will considerably impact the criminal case currently being prosecuted by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who belongs to the Democratic Party.
Meadows, who worked as Trump’s Chief of Staff, has requested U.S. District Judge Steve Jones to move his case to federal jurisdiction and is now awaiting permission to do so. This move is intended to leverage immunity grounds to have his charges dismissed. It would also broaden the potential jury pool to areas less dominated by Democratic voters and potentially prevent a televised trial, as allowed under Georgia’s state law.
Should Meadows achieve this transition, legal experts speculate it could pave the way for former President Trump to pursue a similar course of action. Even though Meadows’s legal argument may not be the sole determinant, the overall circumstances of the case could influence Judge Jones’s decision. If Meadows is granted the change of venue, it’s likely Trump would also be allowed to do the same, regardless of the specific legal arguments.
Meadows and 18 co-defendants face racketeering charges, enabling prosecutors to construct a purported conspiracy spanning several months to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results to retain Trump’s hold on power. Prosecutors have outlined 161 actions they claim are part of this conspiracy, with Meadows being linked to eight. These actions include meetings with state legislators, Meadows’s attempt to observe a signature audit during a Georgia trip, and arranging calls between state election officials and Trump.
Meadows has contested the accuracy of some of these allegations. One of the notable incidents involves a call where Trump urged the state’s top election official to “find 11,780 votes.” In relation to the call, Meadows has been charged with soliciting a public officer to violate their oath of office.
While other federal officials have previously attempted to transfer their criminal cases, legal experts believe Judge Jones is grappling with a unique situation characterized by limited precedent.
As Judge Jones weighs his decision, he has indicated that some, though not all, of the allegations against Meadows could meet the criteria for proceeding in federal court. This uncertainty has led to a dispute between Meadows and prosecutors, revolving around whether the circumstances warrant a change in jurisdiction.
The legal dispute hinges on three main factors: Meadows must establish that he was a federal officer, that the allegations are tied to actions “under the color of such office,” and that he has a plausible federal defense. Both sides agree that Meadows’s role in the White House satisfies the first factor, but they disagree on the latter two points.
Judge Jones held a hearing to address this dispute, followed by a request for both sides to submit written perspectives on a key question: whether some of the alleged actions attributed to Meadows, but not all, were carried out under the authority of his office. This query suggests that Judge Jones is contemplating whether certain acts could justify transferring the case to federal court.
The responses to this query from Meadows and prosecutors differed predictably. Meadows’s attorneys contended that charging a mixture of removable and nonremovable actions shouldn’t exempt the case from removal to federal court. In contrast, Willis’s office argued that Meadows’s involvement in the broader conspiracy prompted the racketeering charge rather than a specific act in the indictment.
Lee Kovarsky, the University of Texas law professor, noted that even if Judge Jones were to align with Meadows’s position, the third factor of showing a federal defense hasn’t been convincingly established. Alex Reinert, a professor at the Cardozo School of Law, echoed this sentiment, highlighting that while Meadows might struggle to present a federal defense for certain allegations, there is still room for Judge Jones to find grounds for removal.
The situation remains complex, with various legal arguments and uncertainties surrounding the potential transfer of Meadows’s charges to federal court.