People don't seem to be clear about why Trump (or Meadows) want to move State cases to Federal Court

[brooklynite]

It has nothing to do with the jury pool.

This CivPro backgrounder brings us to the news of the day. President Trump will try to remove his New York criminal prosecution to federal district court. As best as I can tell, this argument was first raised by David Rivkin and Kristin Shapiro in the Wall Street Journal. They wrote that Trump should remove the case. And once removed, Trump could invoked what is known as Supremacy Clause immunity. That doctrine, which flows from McCulloch v. Maryland, holds that states cannot prosecute a federal officer for engaging in some federal function. That landmark case arose from a criminal prosecution of a federal bank employee named McCulloch. Supremacy Clause immunity was also invoked in In Re Neagle. A marshal protecting Justice Steven Field killed a man in defense of the justice. California tried to prosecute the marshal for murder. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution was preempted by Supremacy Clause immunity.

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/04/trump-to-remove-criminal-prosecution-to-federal-court/

[Sogo]

1. To whom do they appeal to make this change to a Federal Court?

Who decides?

[brooklynite]

2. The Federal Court does.

The State entity can and does appeal.

Judge Rejects Trump Attempt to Move NY Case to Federal Court

A Southern District of New York judge granted the remand of a case against former President Donald Trump over hush money paid to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in October 2016. Trump had invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) to try and move the case to federal court.

Contrary to the motion to remand submitted by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, in which Bragg argued that Trump was an elected official, rather than an appointed officer of the United States who holds the right to invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a), the judge found that Trump was an officer of the United States during his presidency. However, the judge also found that Trump failed to sufficiently support that his payment to Stormy Daniels was “relating to any act under color of office,” and instead was "purely a personal item of the President—a cover-up of an embarrassing event." Based on these findings, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein remanded the case.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/judge-rejects-trump-attempt-to-move-ny-case-to-federal-court

[Ms. Toad]

3. Awful lot of back and forth for someone who is a con law prof.

I think I'll wait until the dust settles on this one.

[leftieNanner]

4. And putting it in federal court

Leaves open a presidential pardon.

[jcgoldie]

6. Not according to Anna Bower of Lawfare

... who was on with Chris Hayes tonight.

[tritsofme]

9. No it doesn't.

[choie]

5. Trying to thwart an election

and steal votes are not part of his federal function.

[republianmushroom]

7. thank you

[dlk]

8. More delay tactics

There will be many.

[Jarqui]

10. The NY case shot down the Supremacy Clause - Trump tried for it

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642260.html

A.?Immunity

Trump first raises an immunity defense. Trump has expressly waived any argument premised on a theory of absolute presidential immunity. (Def.’s Br. 21.) Instead, he argues that he is immune from prosecution under the Supremacy Clause?5 because his conduct “w[as] taken solely because he was President of the United States” and, “[a]s such, [his] decision to retain Michael Cohen to act as his personal lawyer arose out of his duties as President.” (Notice ¶¶ 19–20; see also Def.’s Br. 21.) Trump has not raised a colorable immunity defense.

“Immunity does not attach merely because state criminal prosecutions are based upon acts that happen during the scope of a federal officer's employment,” and not everything a President does is “in the context of the discharge of his federal duties.” De Vecchio, 468 F. Supp. 2d at 460, 462; see also North Carolina v. Ivory, 906 F.2d 999, 1003 (4th Cir. 1990) (holding that immunity does not provide federal officers “carte blanche ․ to proceed as they please” in carrying out every act within the scope of their employment). Rather, Supremacy Clause immunity requires the defendant to show both that he was performing “an act which he was authorized to do by the law of the United States” and that, in performing that authorized act, “he did no more than what was necessary and proper for him to do.” In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 75, 10 S.Ct. 658, 34 L.Ed. 55 (1890); see also New York v. Tanella, 374 F.3d 141, 147 (2d Cir. 2004). The standard is more stringent than the color of office test: “the acts themselves must of necessity be required in the discharge of the officer's duties.” De Vecchio, 468 F. Supp. 2d at 460.

Paying off the porn star and fraudulently recording it in his books is not "an act which he was authorized to do by the law of the United States” and that, in performing that authorized act, “he did (no) WAY more than what was necessary and proper for him to do.”

Ditto for his other acts like: stealing classified docs, obstruction, fraud, forgery, trying to steal Georgia, Defrauding the US, false documents/statements, enticing a public officer to violate their oath, etc.

I don't think we have to worry about Supremacy Clause Immunity. It is not intended for crooks.