A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Monday upheld a lower court ruling that denied former Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows’ request to transfer his charges in the Georgia election interference case to federal court.   

Meadows argued that the charges against him relate to the scope of his official duties and that he had “colorable” federal defenses. This relates to a federal law, 28 USC § 1442 (a)(1), allowing state-level cases against federal officers relating to acts under the “color” of their official duties to be moved to federal court. Acts taken under color of office must be either “vested with, or appear to be vested with, the authority entrusted to that office.”

The appeals court first considered whether the law applies to former federal officers. It found that, since the removal statute does not mention former federal officers, it is inapplicable to Meadows’ case. 

Despite this, the court also weighed whether Meadows could show that his alleged criminal acts were related to his role as the White House Chief of Staff. The court examined precedents on how to satisfy the scope of the removal requirements, which stipulate that a “causal connection” between the charged conduct and asserted official authority must exist. 

Meadows, former President Donald Trump, and 17 others were indicted under Georgia’s Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) in August over attempts to keep Trump in office after his election loss to Joe Biden in 2020.  Four, including two Trump attorneys, have now pleaded guilty. Meadows and Trump were also charged with solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer over a phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger where Trump asked Raffensburger to find him more votes.

The Eleventh Circuit concluded that based on the factual evidence, Meadows was not acting in the scope of his office and that he had not met even the “quite low” threshold for removal to a federal court proceeding. The court found that the role of the White House Chief of Staff did not include the alleged efforts made by Meadows to assist in “working for” the Trump campaign. Thus, consistent with Meadows’s testimony and the federal statutes and regulations, engaging in political activities exceeded the outer limits of the Office of the White House Chief of Staff. 

In his initial ruling against Meadows, US District Court Judge Jones emphasized that there is a “strong judicial policy against federal interference with state criminal proceedings.” The appellate level upheld the state’s right to deal with matters within its domain and as a constitutional matter, reiterated that executive power does not extend to overseeing states’ elections.