On Thursday, Fulton County, Georgia, Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee dismissed two counts against former President Donald Trump due to a lack of jurisdiction. The dismissal echoes concerns about the enforcement of federal laws in a state court, which appears to conflict with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Breitbart News previously highlighted this issue when Trump and 18 co-defendants were indicted on charges related to alleged voter fraud.
The indictment covers conduct not only in Georgia but also in other states, such as a public hearing about voting irregularities in Pennsylvania. It suggests that the local county prosecutor might be attempting to enforce federal law. This could be seen as an attempt to overshadow U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith and may even be unconstitutional.
In his decision, Judge McAfee wrote that while not all state charges were preempted by federal laws such as the Electoral Count Act, “the United States Supreme Court’s decision of In re Loney, 134 U.S. 372 (1890) preempts the State’s ability to prosecute perjury and false filings in a federal district court, Counts 14, 15, and 27 must be quashed.
Counts 14, 15, and 27 relate to the attempt to file false documents; the conspiracy to file false documents, and filing false documents. Although the indictment cited Georgia statutes, the documents themselves were filed in (count 27), or sent to (counts 14 and 15) federal courts.
Judge McAfee explained that “unlike the forgery of currency which can be used to commit fraud against individuals in the state, filing false documents in U.S. District Court is an offense — like perjury — committed directly against the public justice of the United States because that is where the primary effect of the false filing lies.” Because federal laws already exist to police federal courts, the state cannot prosecute alleged violations of those courts’ rules on its own.
By Judge McAfee’s logic, Trump’s 34 convictions in New York on charges of fraudulent business filings should be overturned as well. The dismissal may set a precedent for similar cases across the country, raising questions about the constitutionality of state courts prosecuting alleged violations of federal laws and tribunals.