Appeals Court Rejects Mark Meadows’s Request of Case Removal, Urges Congress to Update Law

Then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows talks to reporters at the White House on Oct. 21, 2020. Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

On Dec. 18, a federal appeals court rejected Mark Meadows’s bid to remove a state criminal case against him to federal court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th District ruled that the federal officer removal statute doesn’t apply to former federal officers and therefore no longer covers Mr. Meadows, but it urged Congress to amend the text of the statute as this ruling has far-reaching ramifications.

Mr. Meadows was chief of staff for then-President Donald Trump, and both men and 17 others were indicted in Fulton County, Georgia, for racketeering in their challenge of the 2020 election results. Four of the defendants have since taken plea bargains.

“Meadows, as a former chief of staff, is not a federal ‘officer’ within the meaning of the removal statute,” Judge William Pryor wrote for the three-judge panel. “Even if Meadows were an ‘officer,’ his participation in an alleged conspiracy to overturn a presidential election was not related to his official duties.”

Judge Robin Rosenbaum concurred but additionally urged Congress to amend the statute.

“The text and structure of the federal-officer removal statute ... compel our conclusion that former federal officers cannot invoke the statute,” Judge Rosenbaum wrote. “But not covering former federal officers comes with a great potential cost to our government and those who serve in it. So I respectfully urge Congress to amend Section 1422(a)(1) to protect former federal officers.”

Mr. Meadows was the first of six defendants to seek removal of his case from Georgia court to federal court, where he would have asked for the charges to be dismissed under a federal immunity defense. None of the removals has been granted.

Former Officers

Federal officers acting in their official capacities have some immunity in state and local jurisdictions, as they are meant to answer to federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that this is to prevent interference in federal operations by states.

But whether former federal officers should be tried in federal rather than state court was the subject of the most recent hearing before the appeals court.

During the hearing, legal counsel for Mr. Meadows argued that to not cover former federal officers would open them up to suit in states where the policy they carried out was unpopular. Judges agreed this was a great concern but didn’t seem to think the statute, as written, covered former officers.

In the Dec. 18 opinion and order, Judge Pryor wrote that the court has “long understood the statute to afford a current federal officer a federal forum for the adjudication of his liability or guilt,” emphasizing that the language of the statute is clear in this.

Contextual reading of the statute and similar statutes also support this interpretation, Judge Pryor wrote, adding that earlier versions of the statute show that Congress used clear language to cover “federal officers” when it meant to do so.

Mr. Meadows isn’t the first former officer to try to remove his case to federal court, and others have succeeded, Judge Pryor noted. “[Those decisions] have tended to involve cursory jurisdictional rulings which we do not credit,” he said.

Hatch Act

The Hatch Act is a federal law passed in 1939 that limits certain political activities of federal employees. Georgia prosecutors made Hatch Act arguments during Mr. Meadows’s initial request for removal. In a surprising move, Mr. Meadows testified at length himself, and prosecutors called on witnesses, turning the removal hearing into a mini-trial.

The indictment, which included 161 acts of racketeering, named Mr. Meadows in several acts, from setting up meetings for the president to trying to view a ballot recount session.

Prosecutors argued that these actions fell beyond Mr. Meadows’s official chief-of-staff duties; they were political actions that violated the rules of conduct for federal officers.

Judge Pryor wrote that the acts are alleged association with the charged conspiracy, that the color of Mr. Meadows’s office didn’t include “superintending state election procedures or electioneering on behalf of the Trump Campaign,” and that the association with the conspiracy was not related to being chief of staff.

“Simply put, whatever the precise contours of Mr. Meadows’s official authority, that authority did not extend to an alleged conspiracy to overturn valid election results,” Judge Pryor wrote.

Mr. Meadows previously filed a motion to pause proceedings in state court as he sought to appeal his case removal. It was rejected, but he was granted a brief deadline delay. His legal team may yet file motions to dismiss the case in state court with defenses similar to those used in his notice of removal.