Meadows was one of five defendants seeking to move his case to federal court. “Simply put, whatever the precise contours of Meadows’s official authority, that authority did not extend to an alleged conspiracy to overturn valid election results,” Pryor wrote.”

The conspiracy to overturn the election alleged in the indictment and the acts of “superintending state election procedures or electioneering on behalf of the Trump campaign” were not related to Meadows’ duties as chief of staff, Pryor wrote. Pryor also rejected Meadows’ argument that moving his case to federal court would allow him to assert federal immunity defenses that may apply to former officers, writing that he “cites no authority suggesting that state courts are unequipped to evaluate federal immunities.” “But limiting protections to current officers also respects the balance between state and federal interests” by preventing federal interference with state criminal proceedings. “Shielding officers performing current duties effects the statute’s purpose of protecting the operations of federal government,” he wrote.

Meadows casino careers