The US Supreme Court is seen on the first day of her new term in Washington, D.C., on October 7. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images hide caption
Toggle caption Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images
The Supreme Court dealt a major legal blow to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on Tuesday, refusing to transfer Georgia election interference charges against him from state court to federal court.
The court’s action came in a routine one-sentence order, without any notable opposition.
Meadows is one of 18 people indicted in state court on charges of illegally conspiring to keep former President Trump in office after he lost the 2020 election. Trump has been indicted on similar charges at the state level, but the Supreme Court earlier this year granted him broad immunity from prosecution. For his official actions, you are supposed to enjoy immunity thereafter. Meadows sought to leverage that decision to apply to him, claiming that the charges against him should at least be transferred from state court to federal court because he was a federal officer at the time of the alleged conspiracy.
But the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Atlanta, ruled that Meadows was no longer a federal official, and that even if he had been, his actions “were not related to his official duties.” Among other things, Meadows was on a 2020 phone call with Trump when the then-president unsuccessfully sought to pressure Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to overturn the state’s vote. Or as Trump said in the recorded conversation: “All I want to do is this. I just want to get 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have.”
Had Meadows been tried in federal court, Trump’s Justice Department almost certainly would have dismissed the charges. Instead, he faces state charges in a sprawling election-tampering conspiracy case dating back to 2020. However, that case was put on hold after the Georgia Court of Appeals agreed to review whether Fulton County District Attorney Fanny Willis should be removed over her relationship Romance. With the special prosecutor you appointed to handle the case.
New York rent control challenge case
In another action on Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case challenging New York’s rent control law.
The law, first passed during World War II, was amended in 2019 to strengthen the rights of renters in the state, especially New York City, Buffalo and other urban and suburban areas. The changes included a limit on rent increases or lease renewals, narrowing the circumstances in which a landlord could evict a tenant in order to seize the space for personal use, and restrictions on landlords seeking to convert rental space into residential units.
The law has been challenged by New York landlords, all of whom have units subject to rent stabilization laws. They claimed that the law violated their rights to do what they wanted with their property and that it caused them financial harm. Specifically, they asserted that the law amounted to an unconstitutional seizure of their property without just compensation.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their claim, declaring that the government did not seize competitors’ properties because building owners entered the rental market voluntarily and were still able to evict tenants. The objectors immediately appealed to the Supreme Court, but to no avail.
Justice Neil Gorsuch indicated that he wanted to hear the case.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has been very receptive to claims that the government is unconstitutionally seizing property, but Tuesday’s action follows previous cases in which the court has refused to intervene in disputes over rent control.
New York City is considered one of the most expensive cities in the world, with the cost of living rising due to rising housing prices. According to the New York State Comptroller’s Office, housing affordability in New York City has deteriorated in the past decade, with the median rental price rising faster than median income. Similar patterns have emerged in other parts of the country as well.
Ilana Dutton contributed to this story.
