The Supreme Court of the United States issued an official orders list on November 13, 2026, denying Mark Meadows’ petition for a writ of certiorari without noted dissents, according to official docket entries certified by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. The order leaves intact an Eleventh Circuit judgment rejecting the former White House Chief of Staff’s attempt to transfer his Georgia state criminal racketeering indictment to federal district court. Meadows must confront felony charges concerning the 2020 presidential election within Georgia state court jurisdictions. Meadows argued his coordination of telephone conferences between executive leadership and Georgia state election officials fell within his official responsibilities, entitling him to transfer state charges and assert federal Supremacy Clause immunity. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that 28 U.S.C. § 1442 applies only to current federal officers, not former executive officials.
In Atlanta, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis responded in a formal statement documented by CBS News and Reuters. Willis said no current or former federal official stands above the law or possesses immunity against state criminal statutes. She said state grand jury indictments alleging racketeering and interference with lawful electoral processes must be adjudicated within state courtrooms under state statutory rules. Defense counsel representing Meadows expressed disappointment, maintaining that former executive personnel require federal jurisdictional shields against state political prosecutions, but stated the defense will pursue full legal exoneration within Georgia state courts.
Trial proceedings in Fulton County Superior Court remain stayed. Multiple co-defendants, including Donald Trump and Meadows, filed interlocutory appeals seeking the disqualification of Willis based on alleged conflict of interest violations. The Georgia Court of Appeals accepted the appeal and scheduled oral arguments for early 2025. Atlanta criminal defense practitioners noted that the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant certiorari creates binding procedural precedent for co-defendants seeking to remove state charges.
