As former President Donald Trump turns to the final days of his campaign for a second term in the White House, some of his ex-aides are trying to get into another building in Washington: the Supreme Court.
Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, is urging the justices to yank the Georgia election subversion case against him into federal court. His former trade advisor, Peter Navarro, wants the Supreme Court to wade into a fight over presidential records he kept on his private email.
On Monday, the high court brushed aside a lawsuit from Trump’s former fixer, Michael Cohen, who alleged his ex-boss retaliated against him for promoting a tell-all book.
The appeals – some more serious than others – reflect the chaotic cast of characters that surrounded the Republican nominee during his four years in office, many of whom remain in serious legal jeopardy. Some may hope that the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative supermajority will take a sympathetic view of those who, at least at one point, were close to a president who named three of the nine justices.
But while Trump scored a major legal victory from that majority in July when it found former presidents are entitled to sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution, his former aides – so far – haven’t fared nearly as well.
“The court does not want to deal with any of these cases,” predicted Timothy Johnson, a professor of political science and law at the University of Minnesota. The Trump immunity ruling, he said, demonstrated that the court’s conservatives “are very interested in presidential power but not in executive branch power.”
Reading Navarro’s emails
The latest appeal from a former Trump aide landed on the court’s docket Tuesday. Navarro, Trump’s ex-trade adviser, has been in a years-long battle with the government over presidential records. The National Archives and Records Administration demanded the records be returned, but Navarro has resisted.
In a brief appeal to the Supreme Court, Navarro described his litigation as “of critical political significance” because it could determine how the government enforces the Presidential Records Act, a post-Nixon era law that requires the preservation of presidential documents.
“The scope of government overreach by a weaponized justice system under Democrat rule is breathtaking,” Navarro told CNN in a statement. “Somebody has to stand up for our Constitution and I guess it is just my turn.”
But lower courts have consistently sided with the Justice Department in the dispute. Navarro’s bid to get the Supreme Court to jump into the dispute is a longshot, in part because even Navarro acknowledges that “much of the case is not yet ripe for review.”
“These arguments are without merit under clear, longstanding precedent,” a three-judge panel of federal appeals court judges in Washington – all appointed by Democratic presidents – wrote in April.
Earlier this year, Navarro tried to get the justices to help him avoid prison in a separate case involving his decision to defy a subpoena from the January 6 congressional committee. Chief Justice John Roberts rejected that request in March.
Immunity for Meadows?
The most serious claim comes from Meadows, who is trying to move the Georgia election subversion prosecution against him to federal court. If Meadows convinces a majority of the Supreme Court to go along with him, that would let him raise immunity claims.
The Supreme Court is set to discuss his case in private in early November.
Meadows’ claim is significant partly because it overlaps with Trump’s own immunity case. Trump’s fight with special counsel Jack Smith is continuing in federal court as US District Judge Tanya Chutkan weighs whether the steps he took to try to overturn the 2020 election were official or political.
Trump named three Supreme Court justices – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – solidifying conservative control of the bench.
Meadows says his own actions were official, and he has brought on one of the best-known members of the Supreme Court bar, Paul Clement, to help make that argument. Clement, a former US solicitor general, has argued more than 100 cases before the high court.
Meadows filed his appeal in July and on Tuesday submitted the last brief required before the court decides whether to grant his case.
A former North Carolina congressman, Meadows served as White House chief of staff late in Trump’s term and was indicted in Fulton County on racketeering and other charges tied to phone calls and meetings in which Trump leaned on state officials to change the outcome of the 2020 election in Georgia. He has pleaded not guilty.
The Atlanta-based 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the Georgia prosecution against Meadows should move forward in state court, concluding that former federal officials are not covered by the statute “removing” state cases against government officials to federal court. That court also ruled that “the events giving rise to this criminal action were not related to Meadows’s official duties.”
Meadows says that decision was “egregiously and dangerously wrong” because he said it leaves former federal officials with little protection from local prosecutors filing politically motivated charges.
“While it is possible to hope that future federal prosecutors will show restraint in targeting former federal officials, it is impossible to expect literally thousands of state and local officials – many of whom are elected and may have their eyes on higher office – to show similar restraint,” Meadows told the high court.
Justices deny Cohen’s claims
The Supreme Court brushed aside an appeal on Monday from Cohen that was opposed by both Trump and President Joe Biden’s administration.
Cohen sued Trump, former Attorney General Bill Barr and other federal officials in 2021 for alleged retaliation in response to public comments he made about his book. After declining to sign an agreement barring him from speaking with the media, Cohen was taken back into custody — after initially being released during the pandemic — and placed in solitary confinement for more than two weeks, court records show.
A US District Court dismissed Cohen’s lawsuit for damages and the New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision in January.
Trump’s attorneys called the case “entirely devoid of merit.” The Justice Department said Cohen made “no meaningful effort to show that the legal issues raised by this case recur in other cases” and that his claim was therefore “outside the mainstream” of the court’s role.
The Supreme Court ultimately appeared to agree. It declined to hear Cohen’s case without comment.
–
CNN.com
