Mark Meadows tells Georgia judge to dismiss his election racketeering case

Mark Meadows is demanding that his Georgia election racketeering case be dismissed due to the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution, according to court records revealed by investigative reporter Zach Merchant.

Meadows' attorneys requested Monday an evidentiary hearing to discuss his argument in the Fulton County court where he and former President Donald Trump face multiple criminal charges linked to the 2020 presidential election, according to the Atlanta NBC affiliate reporter's post.

Trump's former White House chief of staff previously filed a suit demanding that his case be moved to federal court but was denied. His new argument is that the Constitution mandates state law not interfere with federal law.

ALSO READ: No, Donald Trump, fraud is not protected by the First Amendment

Article VI does not say that state law interferes with federal law; rather, "it establishes that the federal constitution and federal law generally take precedence over state laws and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect."

The filing begins by saying that the timeline for the Supreme Court to take up his case hasn't yet expired, so it's still possible that the High Court could overrule the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals refusal to move Meadows' case to federal court.

Merchant also noted that Meadows' filing claims that the same Supremacy Clause "makes him immune to the Fulton election interference charges."

Meadows pleaded not guilty to two felony charges linked to his involvement in an alleged attempt to toss the 2020 election results in Georgia.

This argument does not pass muster with legal analyst Andrew Weissmann, who compared Meadows to a hypothetical federal employee accused of robbing a bank. He explained that employees would not be charged in federal court due to their job as they broke a state law.