Trump Says He May Seek to Move Georgia Case to Federal Court

Former President Donald Trump gives a thumbs up as he arrives at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in Atlanta on Aug. 24, 2023. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Former President Donald Trump may seek to move the Georgia election interference case against him to federal court and out of Fulton County, his lawyer said in a filing.

“President Trump hereby notifies the Court that he may seek removal of his prosecution to federal court under 28 U.S.C. [Sections] 1442 & 1445,” Steven Sadow, lead counsel for President Trump in the Georgia case, wrote in a Sept. 7 filing. “His written waiver of arraignment was filed on August 31, 2013. To be timely, his notice of removal must be filed within 30 days of his arraignment.”

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis brought the case against President Trump and 18 co-defendants, alleging that their challenge of the 2020 presidential election results constituted a “criminal racketeering enterprise.”

If a notice of removal is filed, an evidentiary hearing will held in federal court, where U.S. District Judge Steve Jones will decide how much of the case may be remanded back to state court. The judge can also dismiss a removal entirely, sending the case back to state court without a hearing.

4 Notices

Four co-defendants have already requested the removal of their cases: Mark Meadows, former chief of staff to President Trump; Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department (DOJ) official under the Trump administration; and David Shafer and Shawn Still, both alternate electors who argue that their roles, legitimized by Congress, can be considered federal offices and that, at a minimum, they were acting at the direction of federal officers.

The U.S. Constitution states that federal law precedes state law and courts, and in court rulings, that’s been taken to mean that federal officers aren’t subject to state law before acting and can’t be tried in state court.

There may be several reasons for removing the case, including having the case dismissed entirely, as some of the defendants’ lawyers have argued.

First Hearing

On Aug. 28, Judge Jones held a hearing on Mr. Meadows’s removal request.

The prosecution had also subpoenaed several witnesses to testify at the hearing in arguing that the case shouldn’t be moved from state jurisdiction, expanding the initial hearing into a mini-trial.

This was the first time that legal arguments were made in court regarding the challenge of the 2020 elections, for which President Trump has also been indicted in federal court.

Mr. Meadows argued that he’s immune to these state charges, while the prosecution argued that his actions in the indictment weren’t those of a federal officer.

The all-day hearing ended without a ruling; Judge Jones asked both sides to submit additional arguments to clarify a few points. If only one of the actions Mr. Meadows is charged with was carried out as a federal officer, would that be enough to remove the case? Both parties filed their arguments by the end of Aug. 31, with the defense arguing that precedents have shown that it would be more than enough and the prosecution arguing that it wouldn’t be sufficient.

The judge, who has yet to rule on Mr. Meadows’s case, has scheduled a second evidentiary hearing regarding Mr. Clark’s case removal for Sept. 18.

Ms. Willis’s office has until Sept. 8 to file a response to Mr. Clark’s case after being given an extension from Sept. 5.

Mr. Clark’s case may prove to be more straightforward than Mr. Meadows’s; the indictment references only one act of Mr. Clark’s throughout the various acts and charges.

While in office, Mr. Clark issued a DOJ statement that said the department has “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia.” He had other DOJ officials sign the statement and had it delivered to election officials in Georgia.

All defendants were charged with racketeering under the state’s RICO, or Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Mr. Clark was additionally charged with one count of criminal attempt to commit false statements and writings. Mr. Meadows was additionally charged with solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer, referencing his arranging a call between President Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

The indictment also cites several other of Mr. Meadows’s actions, such as arranging and attending meetings with or on behalf of the president. The federal court is now in the process of ruling on whether these actions were taken by Mr. Meadows acting in his official capacity and on how many cases, if the defendants acted in an official capacity in only some of them, should be tried in federal court instead of state court.

Complications

These removals have complicated the case that Ms. Willis intended to try once, with all 19 defendants together. She initially proposed a six-month timeline, starting trial on March 4, 2024. After a defendant’s request for a speedy trial, she proposed trying all 19 defendants together beginning on Oct. 23, in less than two months.

Because it is a RICO case, the prosecutors will need to present the whole case, including all the evidence and the estimated 150 witnesses, whether they are trying it against one, two, or 19 of the co-defendants.

“Evidence against one is evidence against all,” Nathan Wade, Georgia special prosecutor, said during the hearing before Judge Scott McAfee on Sept. 7, regarding two defendants who’ve asked to sever their cases while demanding a speedy trial.

The judge raised the point that a ruling in state court may become moot should one or multiple of the defendants succeed in removing their cases to federal court.

He expressed skepticism of the prosecution’s four-month timeline for the trials.