Thread by @lee_kovarsky

A FEW QUICK THOUGHTS ON THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT OPINION ON MEADOWS.

(1) This is an astonishing defeat for Meadows, on every front. He's not protected because he's a former officer (not a current one), and he's not protected even if CA11 turns out to be wrong on that question.

1/

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1736847930080837906

(2) This is particularly devastating because the ruling against him on whether his activity was under color of law FOR THE PURPOSES OF REMOVAL will do double duty as an opinion on whether he was engaged in official conduct FOR THE PURPOSES OF HIS IMMUNITY DEFENSES.

3/

Still on (2), this means that state courts have *all the cover in the world* to refuse to recognize an officer immunity they were unlikely to recognize anyways. The only entity that can save Meadows on officer immunity is SCOTUS, and that seems *exceedingly* unlikely.

4/

(3) In every way this is bad for Meadows, it's bad for Trump's defense in GEORGIA. Trump was going to claim Supremacy Clause immunity and Presidential immunity, but CA11's opinion on the scope of official duty means that it's going to be impossible for Trump

5/

to prevail on either defense in the GA proceeding. He's going to be saved there by the jury or by winning the national election, that's it, IMHO.

6/

(4) This is ALSO devastating to Trump et al. in the other prosecutions, especially in DC. In all of these cases, he's claiming various forms of immunity that turn on the basic idea that he was somehow engaged in good governance, not unlawful electioneering.

7/

Still on (4), it's *impossible* to overstate the significance of this opinion being written by Chief Judge Pryor, a conservative stalwart and probably the single biggest circuit court ally to Justice Thomas there is.

8/

Judge Pryor clearly wrote this opinion well in advance of argument. It is an unmistakable signal to R-appointed Justices that the immunity defenses are totally frivolous.

9/

It offers an energetic rebuttal to a "Take Care Clause" argument that seemed to gain traction in some R-aligned circles. It's really just a worst case scenario for Trump, not to mention Meadows.

10/

(5) I should add that I'm still quite skeptical of the first holding, that former officers aren't covered under the statute. The holding is a combination of interpretive canons that I find less persuasive under the specific circumstances here.

But,

(6) The holding about whether the agreement at the core of the charge was within the scope of M's and T's official duties is exactly what I've been predicting from the start - maybe even a touch more aggressive than I'd expected.

/e