“Meadows is toast”: Experts say appeals court judges aren’t buying Meadows’ bid to evade Fulton DA

A federal appeals court panel on Friday expressed skepticism at former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’ bid to have a federal court take up and potentially dismiss the state charges against him in Georgia for allegedly attempting to interfere with the 2020 presidential election results in the state, Politico reports. All three members of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals panel sharply questioned Meadows’ argument that his role in former President Donald Trump’s administration requires federal courts — rather than courts in Fulton County, Ga. — to oversee his sprawling racketeering case, which accuses him, Trump and 17 others of conspiring against the state’s election. 

During a 50-minute oral argument session in Atlanta, the appeals judges each pointed skepticism at Meadows’ claim that his work to help Trump remain in power despite states certifying his defeat were part of his official duties as chief of staff. Chief Judge William Pryor Jr., who is staunchly conservative, indicated he doesn’t believe the case removal process applies to former officials at all, explaining that state charges against former officials don’t interfere with “ongoing operations of the federal government.”

Randall Eliason, a George Washington University law professor, predicted Meadows’ bid would be denied because he “didn’t establish he was carrying out official duties or [because] the Court finds removal is not available to former officials – or both.” Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis agreed that “Meadows is toast” on X/Twitter. “I suspect he will lose 3-0. The question is whether the 11th Cir. will closely track the district court ruling, possibly evading Supreme Court review, or if Pryor will nudge the panel to toward categorically keeping former officers out,” Kreis added.