Meadows Fails Again to Move Fake Elector Case to Federal Court \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal judge denied Mark Meadows’ request to move his charges in Arizona’s fake elector case to federal court, marking his second failure to shift his charges out of state court. Meadows, former chief of staff to President Donald Trump, is charged in Arizona and Georgia for his role in efforts to overturn the 2020 election. U.S. District Judge John Tuchi ruled that Meadows missed the filing deadline and failed to prove his actions were part of his official federal duties.
“Mark Meadows’ Legal Setback in Arizona Case” Quick Look
- Federal court bid rejected: A judge denied Meadows’ attempt to move his Arizona fake elector case to federal court.
- Missed deadline: The judge ruled Meadows filed too late and failed to show his actions were tied to his official duties.
- Charges: Meadows is charged in Arizona and Georgia for allegedly working to overturn the 2020 election.
- Supremacy clause argument: Meadows argued his actions were protected by the supremacy clause, which the court dismissed.
- Other developments: Trump’s campaign attorney Jenna Ellis cooperated with Arizona prosecutors, leading to her charges being dismissed.
Deep Look
Mark Meadows, former White House chief of staff under President Donald Trump, faced a legal setback on Monday as a federal judge rejected his request to move his Arizona fake elector case to federal court. This marks the second time Meadows has failed in his efforts to transfer charges stemming from the 2020 election to a higher court.
The ruling came from U.S. District Judge John Tuchi, who cited Meadows’ missed filing deadline and insufficient evidence that his alleged actions were part of his official duties as Trump’s chief of staff. Meadows is accused of working alongside other Trump campaign members to submit fake electors in Arizona and other states to overturn the election in favor of Trump. Meadows has pleaded not guilty to charges in both Arizona and Georgia.
The decision means that Meadows’ case will return to Maricopa County Superior Court, where he faces charges of forgery, fraud, and conspiracy. Arizona prosecutors allege that Meadows coordinated with other members of Trump’s campaign to submit fraudulent electors to Congress and the National Archives, falsely claiming Trump won Arizona, a state President Joe Biden won by over 10,000 votes.
Meadows’ Legal Arguments and Federal Court Bid
Meadows argued that his actions were part of his official duties as chief of staff, making him immune under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which asserts that federal law takes precedence over state law. His legal team claimed that any efforts to challenge the 2020 election results were part of his responsibilities to the president.
Arizona prosecutors rejected that argument, saying Meadows’ involvement in efforts to overturn the election was not part of his White House role. The court agreed, stating that electioneering activities did not fall under his federal responsibilities.
This isn’t the first time Meadows has tried and failed to move his case to federal court. Last year, he made a similar attempt in Georgia, where he faces charges related to election interference. That request was denied by both a lower court and an appellate court. Meadows has since asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Georgia ruling.
Allegations in Arizona
In Arizona, Meadows faces allegations that he helped coordinate meetings and communications between Trump’s campaign and state officials to push the fake elector scheme. According to the indictment, Meadows privately admitted to a White House staff member in November 2020 that Trump had lost the election, but he still proceeded to push efforts aimed at overturning the results.
Although Meadows was not directly involved in signing the fake elector certificates in Arizona, he is accused of playing a significant role behind the scenes. The charges are part of a broader investigation into the submission of false electoral votes, a scheme which has led to similar charges in other states, including Michigan, Nevada, Georgia, and Wisconsin.
Developments in the Arizona Case
Arizona’s fake elector case has implicated 18 Republicans, including 11 individuals who signed a document falsely claiming Trump had won the state’s electoral votes. The case has seen significant developments, with some defendants seeking to dismiss charges, while others, like Trump’s campaign attorney Jenna Ellis, have reached agreements with prosecutors.
Ellis, who worked closely with former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, signed a cooperation agreement with Arizona prosecutors in August, leading to her charges being dismissed. Loraine Pellegrino, a Republican activist, became the first person convicted in the case, pleading guilty to a misdemeanor and receiving probation.
Meadows continues to plead not guilty, as do the remaining defendants. Trump himself was not charged in Arizona, though the indictment refers to him as an unindicted co-conspirator in the scheme to overturn the election.
Meadows’ Next Steps
With his request to move the Arizona case denied, Meadows’ legal team is expected to continue pushing for a dismissal of the charges. His attorneys maintain that nothing Meadows is accused of doing in Arizona was illegal. They argue that his actions were simply in response to people trying to get their ideas before Trump and advising him on the legal strategy to challenge the election results.
The next step for Meadows and his legal team will likely involve further pretrial motions and attempts to convince the court that his actions were lawful. Meanwhile, Meadows awaits the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on whether it will review his request to move his Georgia charges to federal court.
The broader fake elector investigation continues to unfold in multiple states, with prosecutors determined to hold those involved accountable. The legal battles surrounding these cases are expected to set important precedents regarding election interference and the limits of federal immunity for political figures.
