Mark Meadows, former White House chief of staff under Donald Trump, has been dealt a significant blow in his attempts to shift his Arizona election subversion case to federal court—a move that could have bolstered his chances of having the charges dismissed based on “executive privilege.”
Meadows’ legal gambit comes on the heels of a similar failed attempt to shift his Georgia election case to federal jurisdiction. Undeterred, he has now appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in a last-ditch effort to evade state prosecution.
Meadows, along with 17 other Trump associates—including fake electors and various campaign figures—was indicted earlier this year for their role in trying to overturn Trump’s 2020 election defeat. Meadows has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
U.S. District Judge John Tuchi ruled that Meadows’ motion to transfer the case was both “untimely” and unsubstantiated. The judge rejected Meadows’ claims that the alleged misconduct was tied to his official duties as Trump’s chief of staff.
Don't Miss
In his 15-page ruling, Tuchi dismantled Meadows’ arguments, stating, “The State’s charged conduct is unrelated to Mr. Meadows’s official duties Although the Court credits Mr. Meadows’s theory that the Chief of Staff is responsible for acting as the President’s gatekeeper, that conclusion does not create a causal nexus between Mr. Meadows’s official authority and the charged conduct.”
Tuchi further criticized Meadows for attempting to distort the nature of the indictment.
“Contrary to Mr. Meadows’s assertions, the State has not indicted Mr. Meadows for merely facilitating communication to and from the President or for simply staying abreast of campaign goings-on,” Tuchi wrote. “Instead, the State has indicted Mr. Meadows for allegedly orchestrating and participating in an illegal electioneering scheme. Few, if any, of the State’s factual allegations even resemble the secretarial duties that Mr. Meadows maintains are the subject of the indictment.”
“None of the factual allegations at issue here mention management of the President’s time or facilitation of communication to and from the President, much less that any such time management or communication facilitation constitutes the charged conduct in this case,” he continued. “Similarly, contrary to Mr. Meadows’s reframing of the indictment, he is not being prosecuted for receiving text messages intended to simply keep him ‘apprised of what was happening’ with the Trump campaign.”
