Mark Meadows’ Bid to Transfer Election Interference Case Denied by Appeals Court Description: Former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows faces another setback as his attempt to shift the election interference case against him in Georgia to federal court is denied by the Appeals Court. Despite appeals, the court affirms that the charges are unrelated to Meadows’ official duties and should remain under Georgia’s jurisdiction. Keywords: Mark Meadows, former chief of staff, Donald Trump, election interference, Georgia, federal court, Appeals Court, jurisdiction.
Mark Meadows, the former chief of staff for Donald Trump, faced another setback in his attempt to transfer the election interference case against him in Georgia to federal court. Despite a previous rejection from a federal judge and an unsuccessful appeal to a three-judge panel of the U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit last December, Meadows persisted in his efforts. However, the appeals court upheld its decision, affirming that the events leading to the criminal charges against Meadows were unrelated to his official duties and should therefore remain under the jurisdiction of the state of Georgia. Meadows subsequently sought a “rehearing” by the entire 11th Circuit to reconsider his appeal, but this request was also denied on Wednesday. The court issued a concise statement rejecting the petition for rehearing en banc, indicating that no judge had requested the court to be polled on the matter.
Meadows had sought to transfer the case to federal court under a law that allows for the removal of criminal proceedings when an individual is charged for actions allegedly taken as a federal official acting “under color” of their office. The indictment accuses Meadows of involvement in eight “overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy,” while his attorney maintains that none of the actions outlined in the indictment constitute criminal behavior.
Despite Meadows’ efforts, legal experts and scholars have suggested that moving the case to federal court could offer potential advantages, including the possibility of a more sympathetic jury pool and potential delays in the legal proceedings. Nevertheless, the case remains within the jurisdiction of the state of Georgia.
