The Supreme Court decided on Tuesday not to consider former Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows’s request to transfer his Georgia criminal case to a federal court. Meadows, alongside President-elect Trump and others, faces charges led by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, accusing them of attempting to overturn President Biden’s 2020 victory in Georgia.
With the court’s refusal, Willis’s aim to keep all defendants together in one state trial has been supported, though Trump’s recent election may complicate this. His legal team is expected to argue that constitutional protections prevent his prosecution while he holds the presidency.
Paul Clement, Meadows’s lawyer, argued similar protections for ex-presidents should apply to former officials
Uncertainty remains about how any possible delays might affect Trump’s co-defendants, especially as trial proceedings are paused due to some defendants’ appeals, which challenge Willis’s role in the case over a prior relationship with a lead prosecutor.
Meadows’s appeal to the Supreme Court invoked a provision for federal officials, suggesting his actions were related to his official duties, but lower courts and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court disagreed, denying this protection for former officials.
Paul Clement, Meadows’s attorney, argued that similar protections for ex-presidents should apply to former federal officials. Meanwhile, Fulton County prosecutors argued that the lower court’s interpretation was correct and didn’t warrant Supreme Court intervention.
The 11th Circuit’s decision has also affected similar transfer attempts by other defendants, including former Trump DOJ official Jeffrey Clark and others involved as purported electors.
Meadows has sought a similar transfer for his Arizona case related to the 2020 election, though unsuccessfully so far. His attorney, George Terwilliger, criticized the prosecution as politically driven and remains confident in Meadows’s immunity claim.
In a statement, he expressed concerns over former federal officials’ vulnerability to state-level legal actions, asserting that access to federal courts has historically ensured fair trials.
