How Trump’s immunity case at the Supreme Court could mess with Mark Meadows
Ahead of Donald Trump’s Supreme Court immunity hearing, briefs have poured in from parties who are not directly involved in his case. One of them comes from Trump’s former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.
You might wonder: What business does Meadows have weighing in here?
Recall that he’s not charged in the federal election interference case, which is the subject of the upcoming April 25 hearing. But he is charged in the overlapping Georgia state prosecution, where Trump is also charged (both defendants have pleaded not guilty).
With that state case in mind, Meadows’ lawyers tell the justices that the Trump immunity ruling “may have ripple effects which influence how lower courts address distinct but related issues in other cases, including the pending criminal prosecution in Fulton County, Georgia.” More specifically, Meadows is pressing what’s called a “Supremacy Clause” immunity argument in the Georgia case. That’s distinct from Trump’s presidential immunity bid in the Washington case.
Meadows’ lawyers write in his amicus brief, which doesn’t claim to support Trump or the government:
Whatever conclusions the Court may reach about the authority of federal prosecutors to enforce federal law against a former President arising from conduct during his term of office, the Supremacy Clause and this Court’s precedent make clear that state prosecutors lack authority to enforce state law against federal officials, current or former, for official acts.
Basically, even though Trump’s immunity appeal isn’t about Meadows, he wants the decision in Trump’s case to leave open an avenue for him to pursue his own immunity claim. Separately, Meadows may soon file his own Supreme Court appeal in his quest to move his state charges to federal court — an effort that has failed so far.
When it comes to Trump’s Supreme Court case, its impact on Meadows, if any, remains an open question. But, as amicus briefs do, he wants to try to influence the justices’ decision in United States v. Trump. His brief is a reminder that while this case is momentous enough for Trump alone, its effects could quickly extend beyond the former president.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for weekly updates on the top legal stories, including news from the Supreme Court, the Donald Trump cases and more.