In a significant development, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is currently hearing arguments regarding the election interference charges against former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. The case, which also involves former President Donald Trump and 17 others, centers around allegations that they conspired to overturn Trump's 2020 election loss in Georgia. Meadows is seeking to move the case from state court to federal court, invoking the Federal Officer Removal Statute. However, a recent ruling in a separate case involving a man claiming to be an heir to the Moroccan kingdom has raised questions about whether the statute applies to former federal officials like Meadows.

The three-judge panel, appointed by Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, heard oral arguments on Friday, where they raised pressing questions about the jurisdiction of Meadows' case. Meadows contends that his actions were within the scope of his duties as a federal officer at the time of the alleged criminal conduct. However, the judges expressed skepticism about his arguments, with Judge Robin Rosenbaum stating that "everything was within his official duties" cannot be right. U.S. District Judge Stephen C. Jones had previously denied Meadows' request to move the case to federal court, ruling that the evidence showed the actions were taken on behalf of the Trump campaign to affect state election activities.

The appeals court is now faced with the question of whether Meadows can still be considered a federal official for the purposes of the Federal Officer Removal Statute. The court's ruling in a previous case involving a man convicted of filing false retaliatory liens against federal officials, even though two of them were no longer federal employees, has called into question the conditions for removal. The court vacated the man's convictions, setting a precedent that challenges Meadows' argument for moving his case to federal court.

Prosecutors from the Fulton County District Attorney's office argued that Meadows should not be able to move the case to federal court because he is no longer a federal officer. Judge William H. Pryor noted that there might be a heightened reason for removal when dealing with a current officer, as it involves the ongoing operations of the federal government. However, the judges also expressed concerns about the potential chilling effect of keeping the case in state court, suggesting that it could deter individuals from running for office or acting in their official capacities.

At this stage, no ruling has been issued on Meadows' appeal. However, four other defendants in the Fulton County racketeering case are also seeking to have their cases moved to federal courts, with appeals pending in the 11th Circuit. The outcome of Meadows' case could have far-reaching implications for the jurisdiction of election interference charges and the ability of former federal officials to invoke the Federal Officer Removal Statute.