In a significant blow to Mark Meadows' legal strategy, a federal appeals court has rejected his bid to move his Georgia-based criminal charges into federal court, effectively upholding the state's election-related charges against both Meadows and former President Donald Trump.

Authored by conservative chief judge William Pryor, the unsparing opinion made it clear that Meadows must face the charges against him in state court in Atlanta. The ruling denies his attempt to transfer the charges before a federal judge with the hope of having them swiftly dismissed.

Meadows, who served as Trump's White House chief of staff, now has the option to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. However, as it stands, the ruling from the three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals keeps Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' racketeering prosecution of Trump, Meadows, and a dozen other allies on track. Among the defendants, former Justice Department official Jeff Clark and three GOP activists who falsely signed Electoral College paperwork are also seeking to transfer their cases to federal court, but the ruling is expected to have a similar outcome for their efforts.

The 3-0 decision underscores Pryor's conservative stance. If the court had agreed with Meadows and granted the transfer of charges to federal court, it could have had significant ramifications for the case against Trump and all the defendants, potentially leading to substantial delays or even a complete dismissal based on the argument that it pertained to Trump's authority as president.

However, the panel unanimously ruled that the law allowing federal officials to move state-level charges to federal court is applicable to current government officials only, not former ones like Meadows. Furthermore, even if Meadows were still in office, his argument would have failed as the state's charges against him revolve around an alleged criminal agreement to conspire, not his actions as Trump's chief of staff.

Throughout the opinion, Pryor expressed bewilderment at Meadows' expansive view of his duties as chief of staff, rejecting his claim that nearly every action he took fell within his official White House responsibilities, including campaign decisions favoring Trump's reelection.

"We cannot rubberstamp Meadows' legal opinion that the president's chief of staff has unfettered authority," Pryor wrote.

The panel specifically highlighted Meadows' efforts to contact Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger regarding potential alterations to the 2020 election outcome, stating that such actions were outside the scope of his official duties. The panel characterized Meadows' visit to Georgia in December 2020 as an attempt to "infiltrate" an ongoing recount, a clear departure from his role.

"Meadows cannot point to any authority for influencing state officials with allegations of election fraud," Pryor emphasized, concluding that the chief of staff's role does not encompass altering valid election results for a particular candidate.

While the ruling was unanimous, judges Robin Rosenbaum and Nancy Abudu, both appointed by Democrats, raised concerns about the interpretation of the law, suggesting that it could potentially allow state prosecutors to intimidate and interfere with federal officials, hampering government operations. They urged Congress to consider amending the law to clarify that former officials facing prosecution for their official duties can transfer their cases to federal court even after leaving their positions.

Attorney George Terwilliger III, who represents Meadows, has yet to comment on the decision or indicate whether an appeal to the full bench of the 11th Circuit or the Supreme Court is in the works.