Comment on this story
Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows filed a motion last week to move the Georgia court case against him from the state court in Fulton County to the federal court for the Northern District of Georgia. On August 28, he was granted an evidentiary hearing.
The impeachment motion raises a number of questions regarding him and former President Donald Trump in the case of an alleged conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Meadows must present evidence at an Aug. 28 hearing to justify his removal.
While all 19 defendants, totaling 41 counts, face violations of state law, federal law permits a defendant in certain circumstances to “refer” the case to federal court. According to an article in the American Bar Association (ABA), the reason for the law was “to protect those who worked directly or indirectly for the federal government in the event that they are sued or prosecuted for conduct while on the federal government staff.” be.” their capacity as a federal official or working under the direct control and supervision of a federal official.”
To guard against interference “in federal operations that might occur if states were allowed to prosecute state officials in cases affecting their official federal duties,” the ABA explains, federal officials could at least find a federal court and jury who decide their case.
Follow this authorJennifer Ruby‘s opinions
If removed, criminal charges would still be brought under state law, but the accused would be tried in a federal court presided over by a federal judge. If convicted in this case, Meadows and other defendants would be punished under state law, and their sentences would not be commutable under federal law.
Why file for a deportation in federal court? In the case of Meadows (and perhaps other defendants as well), the motive could be nothing more than jury shopping. Legal scholars Laurence H. Tribe, Donald Ayer, and Dennis Aftergut explained in a recent Atlantic article that a defendant who escalates his case to federal court has “a shot at a jury from the entire Northern County of Georgia, and not just from it Fulton County would get.”, which is located in purple-blue Atlanta.”
Defendants seeking federal court deportation may also feel that it might be beneficial to send a state court prosecutor into unfamiliar territory in a federal courtroom, or they may prefer that the judge conduct the voir dire questioning prospective juror (as is done in federal courts). court), not the attorneys (as is the case in state courts).
However, if Meadows thought he would get a chance to find a kinder judge, he might be disappointed. Should Meadows succeed in withdrawing the case, state court judge Scott F. McAfee, appointed only this year by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, would be ousted from office; Veteran US District Court judge Steve C. Jones, appointed by President Barack Obama, would be there. Since the Trump gang believes there are “Trump” judges and “Obama” judges, Meadows might have preferred to try his luck at McAfee.
In any case, Meadows’ attempt to reach federal court could well fail. The relevant statute, US Code 28 Section 1(a), permits deportation only if the accused is an “official (or person acting under the authority of such official) of the United States or any agency thereof … for or in connection with an offense under colour was.” of such office.” However, neither Trump nor Meadows had any constitutional duties regarding state certification of Trump’s own election. The Framers distributed voting duties among the states, the Electoral College, and Congress, but not the President himself.
In addition, a defendant must also demonstrate, in his application for deportation, that he has an “voidable” defense under federal law, such as immunity. In Mesa v. California in 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that mail truck drivers charged with involuntary manslaughter could not stand trial in federal court even though they were performing their assigned duties: driving mail trucks. Because the defendants lacked a state defense of their charges, the court declined to “permit the overturning of state prosecutions of federal officials, thereby potentially imposing exceptional burdens on states where such prosecutions do not address a state issue at all.” “
This is where Meadows and Trump will likely fail if he tries to follow Meadows’ move. They lack a viable defense, such as presidential immunity, to overturn the 2020 election, according to several judges.
Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan in DC last November stated, “If former President Trump interfered with the certification of voter counting, as plaintiffs here allege, such action would not constitute executive branch action in defense of the Constitution.” And in a separate federal case in Washington, Judge Amit P. Mehta dismissed Trump’s claim for absolute immunity from civil lawsuits. “After all, the President’s actions here do not pertain to his duties to faithfully execute the law, regulate foreign affairs, command the armed forces, or direct the executive branch.” Concerns about the separation of powers that justify the broad immunity of the President do not exist here.”
As early as 1982, the Supreme Court in Nixon v. Fitzgerald realized that whatever immunity a president may enjoy must at least cover conduct within the “outer scope” of his duties. Because Trump and his cronies had no right to interfere in the Georgia election process, their actions remain well over the “outer fringe” of their duties. The removal should therefore fail.
Trump may not go down the Meadows route. (The law is unclear as to whether some but not other defendants could “stand behind” if a defendant’s case is referred to federal court.) Trump seems to think that Democrat-appointed judges (like Obama-appointed Jones) don’t will do be fair; He has also shown animosity towards judges of color (Jones is Black, McAfee is White). Trump will have to choose between wasting time – part of a delaying strategy – in starting an impeachment process or staying away from Jones.
Legal precedent isn’t the only reason Meadows’ impeachment motion should be denied. More broadly, deportation would harm the people of Fulton County, where the alleged crimes were committed. They would lose the right to have the case heard by a prosecutor of their choice in their place of residence, under a judge who is up for re-election next year and a jury made up of their roommates.
Let’s not forget that this case comes in a special context, in a state marred by its long history of voter suppression, racist violence and racial segregation. Anthony Michael Kreis, assistant professor of law at Georgia State University, wrote in an Aug. 15 letter to the New York Times, reminding us that for most of Georgia’s history:
The political process was neither free nor fair, as citizens were prevented from voting and legitimate votes were disregarded. The Southern Redeemers refused to recognize their opponents as legitimate voters. And conservatives abandoned the rule of law and used intimidation and political violence to erase the power of multiracial political coalitions.
Basically, the theory behind the Fulton County indictment accuses Mr. Trump and his associates of some of these crimes. . . .
Mr Trump and his allies could not accept that a multiracial coalition of voters emerging across the state would reject him. Election deniers focused on Atlanta, a city whose black residents make up about half of the population, as the location where the Georgia election was allegedly stolen. The dangerous mix of racist resentment and authoritarian impulses left Trump loyalists feeling justified in plotting the fake voters and begging the General Assembly to hold a special session to arbitrarily crush the will of Georgians.
This process would be a unique opportunity to redeem Georgia and achieve some degree of racial justice for Fulton County residents whose campaign workers were targeted in efforts to overturn the election and whose votes Trump sought to negate.
Jones, who will conduct the evidentiary hearing to decide the impeachment issue, should defend the interests of these voters in seeking justice and resisting another attack on their voting rights. It is therefore a legal, historical and moral imperative to keep the case in Fulton County.
