Mark Meadows asks Supreme Court to intervene in Georgia case, citing Trump immunity

Mark Meadows, the one-time chief of staff to former President Donald Trump, is continuing his monthslong effort to move the Fulton County criminal case against him into federal court, asking the Supreme Court in a new appeal to intervene on a lower court's ruling they claim was "dangerously" wrong.

In a filing, dated Friday, Meadows' attorneys say the lower court erred when it rejected Meadows' request to move his case out of state court and into federal court, in part by pointing to the court's recent landmark ruling granting Trump some immunity for official acts

"Just as immunity protection for former officers is critical to ensuring that current and future officers are not deterred from enthusiastic service, so too is the promise of a federal forum in which to litigate that defense," the 47-page filing states.

Meadows for months has sought to move his case into federal court based on a law that calls for the removal of criminal proceedings when someone is charged for actions they allegedly took as a federal official acting "under color" of their office.

Both a lower court and appeals court have rejected that claim, with one judge writing that Meadows' actions charged in the indictment "were taken on behalf of the Trump campaign" and not his official duties.

Now, Meadows has appealed the issue up to the Supreme Court, arguing the appeal court's ruling that the statute does not apply to former officers "defies statutory text, context, history, and common sense."

"The decision [of the lower court] is not just wrong, but dangerously so," Meadows' attorneys continued, again referencing Trump's immunity ruling. "The Court should grant review, or at the very least vacate and remand in light of Trump."

The Fulton County election interference case against Trump and 14 others is largely on pause pending an appeal of the disqualification issue. An appeals court has scheduled oral arguments for December.

Meadows has pleaded not guilty.

The historic Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity referenced by Meadows' lawyers outlined the boundaries of presidential power, making clear for the first time that former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity for "core" official acts but have no immunity for "unofficial" acts.