No. 24-97

Mark Randall Meadows v. Georgia

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2024-07-30
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Experienced Counsel
Tags: causal-nexus federal-defense federal-forum federal-immunity federal-officer-removal statutory-right
Key Terms:
JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2024-11-08
Question Presented (AI Summary)

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

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 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. ii 2. Whether §1442(a)(1) demands the kind of strict “causal-nexus” test that the Eleventh Circuit employed here now that Congress has amended the statute to cover not just suits “for,” but also those “relating to,” any act under color of office.

Docket Entries

2024-11-12
Petition DENIED.
2024-10-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/8/2024.
2024-10-22
2024-10-03
Brief of Georgia in opposition submitted.
2024-10-03
2024-09-27
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including October 3, 2024.
2024-09-26
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 30, 2024 to October 3, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-08-19
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 30, 2024.
2024-08-16
Motion of Georgia for an extension of time submitted.
2024-08-16
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 29, 2024 to September 30, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-07-26
2024-06-20
Application (23A1029) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until July 27, 2024.
2024-06-14
Application (23A1029) to extend further the time from June 27, 2024 to July 27, 2024, submitted to Justice Thomas.
2024-05-21
Application (23A1029) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until June 27, 2024.
2024-05-16
Application (23A1029) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 28, 2024 to June 27, 2024, submitted to Justice Thomas.

Attorneys

Georgia
Francis McDonald Wakeford IVFulton County District Attorney's Office, Respondent
Francis McDonald Wakeford IVFulton County District Attorney's Office, Respondent
Alex Martin BernickFulton County District Attorney's Office, Respondent
Alex Martin BernickFulton County District Attorney's Office, Respondent
Mark Randall Meadows
Paul D. ClementClement & Murphy, PLLC, Petitioner
Paul D. ClementClement & Murphy, PLLC, Petitioner