Trump-era government lawyer Jeffrey Clark and three so-called fake voters lost appeals court bids to take state election interference charges in Georgia to federal court. But their co-defendants Mark Meadows There is a petition pending in the Supreme Court regarding the issue, which could affect their case.

wants meadows justices to overturn last year’s ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this said former Federal officials like him can’t take state cases to federal court because these defendants apparently think they’ll be better off.

The 11th Circuit on Thursday cited Meadows’ ruling against Clark and, separately, against “qualified” 2020 GOP electors David Shafer, Shawn Still and Cathleen Latham.

“Clark does not claim to be a current federal official. So under meadows“He is not eligible to seek dismissal as it is a decision we must abide by.” vs Clark in question. (Noting that Clark was not indicted for actions he allegedly took within the scope of his government responsibilities, a concurring judge added: “Even if the federal civil servant impeachment statute applied to former federal officers, Clark would still not be entitled to a Georgian dismissal of the federal civil servant impeachment statute.” ”)

Likewise, in the decision against fake voters, the appeals court wrote this “Shafer, Still, and Latham are not entitled to impeachment because although appointed electors can be federal officials under the impeachment statute, the law does not apply to former officials.”

But a different Trump-appointed judge, Britt Grant, argued on Thursday that the panel’s decision on Meadows was “wrong and wrong.” While that memorandum could add weight to Meadows’ pending appeal at the Supreme Court, it’s worth noting that the Meadows precedent was written by conservative stalwart William Pryor, who was also part of Thursday’s rulings against Donald Trump’s other defendants. So it’s not a direct Republican-Democrat jurisdiction issue, but there’s clearly a disagreement on that.

The Supreme Court will decide whether to grant Meadows’ petition. special conference 8 November; It takes four judges to agree to hear an appeal. There was already reason to think the justices might be interested in taking it up even before Thursday. But the latest action may further emphasize that the issue must be resolved by judges. That’s the case even though the high court’s handling of the case could further derail the Georgia case, which is now tied to an unrelated case. pre-trial objectionThere is no trial date in sight as Trump runs for office again.

Subscribe Deadline: Legal Bulletin For expert analysis of the week’s biggest legal news, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in Donald Trump’s legal cases.