A federal appeals court on Monday rejected an effort by former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to move his Georgia election interference case out of state court.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a judge’s ruling from September that said Meadows had not demonstrated that the alleged conduct that prompted his prosecution was related to his official duties in the Trump administration.

The court’s decision is a blow to Meadows, who in August sought “prompt removal” of his case from state court, citing a federal law that allows U.S. officers to move civil actions or criminal prosecutions in state court to a federal venue if the alleged actions were taken “under color” of their government office.

“Because federal-officer removal…does not apply to former federal officers, and even if it did, the events giving rise to this criminal action were not related to Meadows’s official duties,” the appeals court wrote in its opinion Monday affirming the lower court’s ruling.

U.S. District Judge Steve C. Jones previously ruled against Meadows. “The Court concludes that Meadows has not shown that the actions that triggered the State’s prosecution related to his federal office,” the judge wrote.

Meadows asked the appeals court on Friday to overturn that ruling.

Meadows, former President Donald Trump and 17 others were indicted in August on felony charges in Georgia related to alleged attempts to keep Trump in office after his election loss to Joe Biden in 2020. Four of the original 19 have since pleaded guilty, while the rest, including Meadows, have pleaded not guilty.

The probe was launched by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

Read Related Also: Family claims inmate had no heart when his body was released from Alabama prison

The indictment, which cites Trump’s phone call urging Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” the votes needed to claim victory in the state, accuses Meadows, Trump and others of unlawfully soliciting Raffensperger on Jan. 2, 2021.

In his appeal, a lawyer for Meadows argued that his client was not required “to establish the outer limits of his office, he merely has to establish the nexus to his duties.”

“Mr. Meadows’ colorable federal defense here, at least at the most basic level, is a federal immunity defense,” George Terwilliger told the three-judge panel during oral arguments.

Meadows, a former congressman from North Carolina who now lives in South Carolina, has repeatedly fought efforts seeking his testimony as it related to his conduct during the final weeks of Trump’s presidency.

He previously tried to avoid testifying before the grand jury in Willis’ probe, but after losing court battles was compelled by an appeals court to testify.

Meadows also rebuffed a subpoena for testimony from the House Jan. 6 committee and was referred to the Justice Department for a criminal contempt of Congress charge. The Justice Department declined to prosecute him.