Mark Randall Meadows v. Georgia

Georgia has brought a criminal prosecution against a former White House Chief of Staff for actions that he took in the West Wing to assist the President. Petitioner Mark Meadows has denied those charges and asserted both federal immunity and the more modest statutory right to have that federal defense adjudicated in federal court. For nearly two centuries, Congress has provided a federal forum for federal officers facing criminal charges brought by state and local officials. Over time, Congress has consistently expanded access to federal forums for federal officers invoking federal defenses. Yet the court below became the first court “in the 190-year history of the federal officer removal statute” to hold that the statute offers no protection to former federal officers facing suit for acts taken while in office. App.17. Not content with bucking common sense and two centuries of history and precedent, the court then faulted Meadows for failing to satisfy a “causal-nexus” test that Congress abrogated in one of its amendments broadening the scope of federal-officer removal, as multiple circuits have recognized. None of this makes any sense. Indeed, two panel members wrote separately to implore Congress to prevent the “nightmare scenario[s]” unleashed by the novel interpretation adopted below. App.37. The far better course is for this Court to intervene. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the right to remove an action against “any officer … for or relating to any act under color of such office,” 28 U.S.C. §1442(a)(1), evaporates when the officer leaves federal office.