Well, I wrote this post about the oral argument, and then the Court decided the case. That was quick! Here's the opinion by Chief Judge Pryor, denying Meadows removal claim. The intro ends this way: "Because federal-officer removal under section 1442(a)(1) does not apply to former federal officers, and even it it did, the events giving rise to this criminal action were not related to Meadows's official duties, we affirm."
Judge Rosenbaum concurs and describes a "nightmare scenario" (not protecting former federal officers from state prosecutions) that "keeps [her] up at night."
Both opinions are worth your read -- two of our best writers on display. And both were podcast guests, if you want to hear more about their writing styles! :)
***
The original post about oral argument:Politico covered the argument here:
A federal appeals court panel took a skeptical stance Friday toward an effort by former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to have a federal court take and potentially dismiss the state charges pending against him for allegedly trying to tamper with the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia.
All three members of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals panel raised sharp questions about Meadows’ argument that his role as Donald Trump’s chief of staff requires federal courts — rather than the courts in Fulton County, Ga. — to oversee the case in which he, Trump and 17 others were charged in an alleged racketeering conspiracy.
During a 50-minute oral argument session in Atlanta, the appeals judges expressed particular skepticism about Meadows’ effort to claim that his work to help Trump secure a second term even after states had certified his defeat — conduct at the heart of the charges against him in Georgia — were part of his official chief-of-staff duties.
“That just cannot be right,” said Judge Robin Rosenbaum, an appointee of President Barack Obama. She specifically cited “electioneering on behalf of a specific political candidate” and “an alleged effort to unlawfully change the outcome of the election” as examples of what would fall outside a government official’s duties.
3 comments:
Judge Rosenbaum is basically describing what she believes will happen in the reddest states to Biden and members of his administration after their term is up. With a not so subtle wink and nod she is telling the democrats to get ready and to change the law while they can.
So what about “any person acting under that officer” ?
2:32 I think you are on to something. In any event, she's right, the law should be changed.
Post a Comment