Left to right: Then President Donald Trump talks to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows outside the White House in 2020 (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File).
Mark Meadows is trying to remove a state criminal case to federal court on grounds that he was the chief of staff to then President Donald Trump at the time, thereby entitling him to “prompt dismissal,” but this time he’s challenging conspiracy, fraud, and forgery charges in his Arizona fake electors indictment — and this time he claims the U.S. Supreme Court immunity decision in Trump v. United States helps his cause.
Meadows has so far repeatedly failed to remove his Georgia RICO case to federal court, but he has since taken his cause from the 11th Circuit to the Supreme Court. As of July, he told the high court that the Trump immunity decision made clear that “federal immunity fully protects former officers” and “protects against the use of official acts to try to hold a current or former federal officer liable for unofficial acts.”
In a Wednesday notice of removal filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Meadows and his lawyers argued much the same, that the genesis of the charges he’s facing are acts that “squarely relate[] to Mr. Meadows’s conduct as Chief of Staff to the President” and that “[n]othing Mr. Meadows is alleged in the indictment to have done is criminal per se.”
More Law&Crime coverage: ‘The Signing’ comes back to haunt Arizona fake electors and some of Trump’s closest advisors, as indictment shows ‘legal exposure’ worries were scoffed at
For Meadows, he was merely receiving and sometimes answering text messages from individuals who were “trying to get ideas in front of President Trump or seeking to inform Mr. Meadows about the strategy and status of various legal efforts by the President’s campaign” to overturn the 2020 election results and keep Trump in office.
“Serving as the filter for the President’s time and attention is well within the Chief of Staff’s role,” the Meadows filing said. “Indeed, it would be unusual if people did not reach out to the Chief of Staff on these matters or that a Chief of Staff would not be aware of these significant matters demanding the attention of the President.”
The former Trump chief of staff asked for an evidentiary hearing and claimed that, at maximum, “justice requires the prompt dismissal of the charges,” and, at minimum, “requires” a removal grant and immediate “halt” of the state prosecution “while the motion to dismiss is resolved.”
More Law&Crime coverage: Mark Meadows unmasked in Arizona fake electors indictment, faces multiple felony charges
“Indeed, it is readily apparent that the text messages Mr. Meadows received were sent to him because he was the Chief of Staff to the President,” the filing said. “The senders were seeking to get their message to the President through Mr. Meadows, to persuade the President’s closest senior advisor, or simply to keep Mr. Meadows apprised of what was happening.”
“When those messages hit Mr. Meadows’s phone, none of them forced him out of his role as Chief of Staff to the President,” his lawyers continued. “To the contrary, fielding that sort of incoming from people who want the President’s attention or to influence his decision-making is squarely within the Chief of Staff’s responsibilities.”
Meadows also made the case that even if one assumes the charged conduct against co-defendants based on messages evidence does constitute state law violations, that helps him.
“[T]hat is all the more reason why it would be appropriate for the Chief of Staff to be aware of them,” the notice said. “Only by being aware of such proposals could the Chief of Staff ensure that the President is getting sound advice to combat any unsound advice he may be receiving.”
But the defendant further made the overarching case, as he did in the aforementioned Supreme Court filing, that the Trump immunity case did not simply outline the “importance of robust immunity for the President of the United States,” but also paved a path for him to stave off state prosecution as a top former advisor.
“While that decision addresses a former President’s immunity from federal prosecution, its reasoning further bolsters the case for immunity from state prosecution for the President and his seniormost advisors,” the notice asserted. “It also underscores the importance of the Federal Officer Removal Statute, which Congress enacted to vindicate those same Supremacy Clause interests.”
The court docket shows that U.S. District Judge John Tuchi has already set an evidentiary hearing for the morning of Sept. 5, ordering up a response from Arizona by Aug. 26.
Law&Crime sought comment from Meadows’ Arizona lawyer.
Read the case file here.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
