In a recent development, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows faced a setback in his bid to move the state election interference charges against him in Georgia to federal court. A three-judge panel on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected his request, upholding a ruling by a district judge in September that stated Meadows must face the charges in state court. The district judge argued that Meadows did not demonstrate that his alleged conduct was related to his official duties in the Trump administration.

Chief Judge William Pryor, who wrote the opinion for the court, stated that a statute allowing federal officials to move their case to federal court does not apply to former officers like Meadows. Pryor emphasized that even if Meadows were considered an officer, his participation in an alleged conspiracy to overturn a presidential election was not related to his official duties. The court concluded that Meadows' authority as chief of staff did not extend to influencing election results.

Meadows, who served as White House chief of staff under former President Donald Trump, was indicted in August, along with Trump and 17 others, on charges of attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election to keep Trump in office. Four defendants have since pleaded guilty, while Meadows and the remaining defendants have pleaded not guilty.

The court's decision was made by judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta. The panel consisted of two Democratic appointees and one Republican, and they unanimously supported the district judge's ruling. Chief Circuit Judge William Pryor, an appointee of President George W. Bush, stated that whatever role the chief of staff may have had in state election administration, it did not include altering valid election results in favor of a particular candidate.

Meadows had sought to move his case out of state court to widen the jury pool to an area with more support for Trump. However, the court determined that his conduct, as outlined in the indictment, was not related to his role as chief of staff or his executive branch authority.

This decision comes after Meadows challenged the ruling from the federal judge in September. The appellate judges heard the case and unanimously affirmed the decision, stating that Meadows' actions as described in the indictment were not associated with his position as chief of staff and did not warrant a transfer to federal court.

The court's skepticism about Meadows acting as a federal official in attempting to overturn Trump's 2020 defeat raises further doubts about his case. Additionally, the court questioned whether Meadows, who is no longer a federal official, was even entitled to remove his case from state to federal court.

The next step in the case is uncertain, as Meadows continues to face charges in state court for his alleged involvement in election interference. This ruling reinforces the jurisdiction of the state court to handle the charges against him and sets the stage for further legal proceedings.