The ruling, however, could have ramifications for many of the other lawsuits filed against the Jan. 6 panel by Trump allies — many of which have similarly landed in Nichols’ court. It’s a major win for the select committee, but somehow it rings hollow. The panel repeatedly told Nichols that he had chosen not to assert his “speech or conversation” immunity and wanted the judge — appointed by Donald Trump — to issue a more sweeping ruling on Trump’s efforts to assert executive privilege against the of Meadows’ testimony. A ruling in favor of the panel would be an exclamation point on its 14-month investigation, underscoring the panel’s urgent need to hear from Meadows, a central figure in Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election. The committee had been seeking Meadows’ testimony since September 2021, saying evidence showed Meadows was a key participant in nearly every aspect of Trump’s plan to seize a second term that he did not win. Meadows was involved in efforts to cast doubt on the election results, coordinating with the Trump campaign on messaging and serving as a watchdog for some of Trump’s outside advisers. It was in a call on January 4, 2021, in which Trump urged Georgia election officials to “find” enough votes to help him win. And he was with Trump on Jan. 6, 2021, when rioters breached the Capitol and Trump waited hours to make a public statement, despite urgent pleas from allies and lawmakers. Nichols acknowledged the important purpose of the select committee’s investigation, but disagreed with the committee’s tactics in the lawsuit. For example, Nichols noted that if the commission made a decision it didn’t like from him, he could simply choose to raise “speech or debate” issues with the appeals court. “Such an outcome could cause a significant waste of time and resources, especially given the new constitutional issues this case presents on the merits,” Nichols noted. Nichols had announced his frustration with the commission’s approach during a Sept. 7 hearing on the matter, noting that the commission had upheld “speech or conversation” immunity in several lawsuits related to Jan. 6. Meadows argued in his lawsuit that he was immune from congressional subpoenas as a member of Trump’s inner circle, which meant large portions of his potential testimony were covered by executive privilege. In fact, Trump had encouraged Meadows to claim executive privilege and tried to block him and other top aides from providing valuable testimony to the committee. But the select committee rejected that case, arguing that Trump, as a former president, had no basis to shield Meadows’ testimony, particularly since current President Joe Biden had waived any privilege claims Meadows was trying to raise. Even if Trump had standing to assert the privilege, the committee argued that its need for Meadows’ testimony was great enough to overcome that claim. But Nichols said even with the House’s attempt to override “speech or debate” immunity — a position Meadows largely agreed with — the judge said he had to consider it. He compared “speech or discussion” immunity to foreign sovereign immunity, noting that courts will dismiss cases on that basis even when it is not asserted by the parties. The judge said that without an express waiver by the House members involved, constitutional immunity applied to the case and required Meadows’ lawsuit to be dismissed. Nicholas Wu and Josh Gerstein contributed to this report.
