Supreme Court Rejects Push to Move Georgia Case Against Ex-Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows
Meadows had gone to the Supreme Court in an effort to move the charges out of Georgia courts. He argues the case belongs in federal court because it relates to his duties as a federal official and pointed to the court's ruling giving broad presidential immunity from criminal prosecution to support his argument.
November 13, 2024 at 11:22 AM
3 minute read
Election and Political LawThe Supreme Court refused Tuesday to let former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows move the election interference case against him in Georgia to federal court, where he would have argued he was immune from prosecution.
The justices did not detail their reasoning in a brief order denying his appeal, as is typical. There were no publicly noted dissents.
Meadows was one of 19 people indicted in Georgia and accused of participating in an illegal scheme to keep then-president Donald Trump in power after he lost the 2020 election. Trump was also charged, though after he won reelection last week to a second term any trial appears unlikely, at least while he holds office. Both men have denied wrongdoing.
Attorney George Terwilliger said Meadows will continue to assert his innocence in state court, and expects to win an exoneration.
It’s unclear what effect the election results could have on others charged in the case, which is largely on hold after an appeals court agreed to review whether to remove Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis over her romantic relationship with the special prosecutor she had hired to lead the case.
Meadows had gone to the Supreme Court in an effort to move the charges out of Georgia courts. He argues the case belongs in federal court because it relates to his duties as a federal official. He pointed to the Supreme Court ruling giving Trump broad immunity from criminal prosecution to support his argument.
“A White House chief of staff facing criminal charges based on actions relating to his work for the president of the United States should not be a close call—especially now that this court has recognized that federal immunity impacts what evidence can be considered, not just what conduct can form the basis for liability,” his attorneys wrote.
But prosecutors said that Meadows failed to show he was carrying out official duties during the alleged scheme, which included participating in a phone call where Trump suggested Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger could help “find” votes he needed to win the state.
They argued the case should stay with Georgia courts, and Meadows can raise federal defenses there. Prosecutors also pushed back against the contention that the charges could have ripple effects on other federal officials.
“His references to the overheated words of opinion editorials cannot suffice to demonstrate that a new era of ubiquitous prosecution of former federal officials is at hand,” government attorneys wrote.
A spokesperson for Willis declined to comment on Tuesday's Supreme Court decision.
A U.S. district judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit both ruled that the case against Meadows and some of his co-defendants should remain in state court. A federal judge has also refused to move an Arizona fake elector case against him there to federal court.
Four people have already pleaded guilty in the Georgia election case after reaching deals with prosecutors. The remaining 15, including Trump and Meadows, have pleaded not guilty.
___
Associated Press writers Eric Tucker in Washington and Kate Brumback in Atlanta contributed to this story.
Copyright 2024 AP. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCombative Giuliani Appears in NYC Court After Missing Deadline to Surrender Assets in Ga. Election Worker Defamation Case
4 minute readGeorgia RICO Case Against Trump Likely to Avoid Trial Amid Election Win, Nationally-Known Law Professor Says
Fulton Reelects Willis as DA Amid Ongoing 2020 Election Case Against Trump
3 minute readBig Law Lawyers Fan Out for Election Day Volunteering in Call Centers and Litigation
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Cravath Elevates 7 to Partnership, Up From Last Year
- 2Kline & Specter Hit With Lawsuit From Another Former Associate
- 3USPTO Director Kathi Vidal Announces Resignation Ahead of Administration Change
- 4As Gen AI Acceptance Grows, Lawyers Race to Mitigate Risks
- 5Decisions Have 'Real-Life Consequences': Juvenile Court Judge Considered for Appellate Bench
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250