By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
PHOENIX -- Mark Meadows is claiming the fact he was White House chief of staff for Donald Trump in his the president's first term means he cannot be charged in Arizona in connection with the fake elector scheme.
"States lack jurisdiction to prosecute federal officials for conduct taken within the scope of their federal offices and duties because the Supremacy Clause bars such claims,'' said Ann Chapman, one of his attorneys.
In a new filing, she is asking Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sam Myers to first separate the claims against him from the remaining defendants in the case being brought by Attorney General Kris Mayes. All are charged with conspiracy and fraud in what Mayes said was a scheme to submit documents to Congress claiming that Donald Trump had won the popular vote in Arizona in 2020 -- and, by extension, the state's 11 electoral votes -- despite the fact he was outpolled by Joe Biden by 10,457 votes.
And then she wants the judge to drop the against Meadows entirely.
The key, Chapman argues, is that anything Meadows may have done was within his role as Trump's chief of staff, making him immune to being charged with violating any state laws.
"Meadows held no role in the president's reelection campaign,'' she wrote. Instead, Chapman said, he was "responsible in his capacity as chief of staff for coordinating the president's time and attention with the campaign.''
Chapman is hanging her argument on last year's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that the president is "absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority,'' And that, she said, extends those working for the president, including Meadows, down to the "outer perimeter'' of his line of duty.''
"Federal law goes the president broad latitude to define the official duties of the chief of staff and other senior aides,'' Chapman told Myers. "And the state has no authority to impose additional limits, conditions or modifications.''
If her theory sounds familiar, it should.
Chapman made similar claims last year when she asked U.S. District Court Judge John Tuchi to rule that state courts have no jurisdiction over Meadows, as chief of staff, for activities related to effort to undermine Biden's 2020 victory. There, as here, Chapman argued that Meadows was acting within the scope of his official authority as Trump's chief of staff and that the charges against him fall within the scope of that authority.
Tuchi, however, said the facts of the case, as stated in the indictment -- and admitted to by Meadows -- offer no such legal protection.
The case surrounds efforts by those aligned with Trump to create an "alternate'' slate of electors despite the outcome of the race. That resulted in charges against not only the 11 Arizona Republicans who signed the statement claiming to be the lawful electors but seven others including Meadows and some of Trump's lawyers like Rudy Giuliani, of helping to come up with the plan.
In the case against Meadows, the state cited a series of incidents in which Meadows communicated with others about the plan being hatched here and in other states and where prosecutors say he took an active role, even getting the cell phone number of then-Gov. Doug Ducey so that Giuliani could reach him "about the election results in Arizona.''
None of that, Tuchi wrote, fits within the scope of Meadows' duties as chief of staff.
"The state has not indicted Mr. Meadows for merely facilitating communication to and from the president or for simply staying abreast of campaign goings-on,'' the judge wrote. "Instead, the state has indicted Mr. Meadows for allegedly (ITALICS) orchestrating (ROMAN) and (ITALICS) participating (ROMAN) in an illegal electioneering scheme.''
And Tuchi made it clear he was not willing to set what he believed would be an improper precedent of allowing a federal official to escape charges in state court.
"Although the court credits Mr. Meadows' theory that the chief of staff is responsible for acting as the president's gatekeeper, that conclusion does not create a causal nexus between Mr. Meadows' official authority and the charged conduct,'' the judge wrote. "The court concludes that the conduct charged in the state prosecution does not relate to Mr. Meadows' color of former office.''
Chapman, undeterred, makes many of the same arguments in state court as she seeks to have the indictment against him dismissed.
"The communications cited as the basis to charge Meadows were obviously and presumptive undertaken pursuant to Meadows' role and duties of chief of staff to the president because they were directed to him on account of his being chief of staff,'' she told Myers in her new filing. "He had no other position or office.''
And she contends that, having raised the defense of the Supremacy Clause and its protections of the president and his staff,, the burden is now on the state to prove otherwise.
"The chief of staff to the president must be able to communicate freely about the many areas of his highly discretionary responsibility, without fear of criminal prosecution by state authorities related to his official conduct,'' Chapman said. "A contrary rule would chill any federal official's conduct, adversely impact his job performance, and undermine the advice and aid given to the president and the operation of the executive branch.''
Mayes' office has not yet responded to the claim.
Whether an indictment actually will continue to exists against Meadows and others is currently up in the air.
In a ruling earlier this month, Myers ordered the case returned to the state grand jury which issued the original 2024 indictment. The judge said it was flawed because prosecutors failed to give jurors access to the Electoral Count Act of 1887, a federal law that, according to defense attorneys, specifically addresses the possibility of Congress getting competing state electors from a single state.
Myers said that is important because several of the defendants have argued they were not trying to commit fraud by claiming that Trump had won -- and that he should get the state's electors -- but were simply providing an alternate slate should there be a finding that the official election results favoring Biden were a mistake.
Myers has given Mayes' office 60 days to argue to him why his ruling is in error and why the case should not be sent back to the grand jury.
--
On X, Bluesky, and Threads: @azcapmedia
Mark Meadows says he can't be charged in AZ fake electors scheme
