Trump Ally In Deep Legal Trouble
A federal appeals court appeared unconvinced Thursday by former Trump White House trade adviser Peter Navarro’s effort to overturn his conviction for defying a congressional subpoena related to the January 6 investigation.
The hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was unusual, with Navarro’s attorney presenting arguments alone after the Department of Justice declined to continue defending the prosecution earlier this year.
Judges Question Legal Basis of Appeal
Judge Patricia Millett, appointed by former President Barack Obama, offered a pointed remark at the conclusion of the hearing.
“Normally, I would offer rebuttal,” Millett said, “but there’s nothing to rebut.”
Navarro’s attorney, Stanley Brand, acknowledged the irregular nature of the case, describing the appeals process as “a very strange journey.”
Despite the court’s apparent doubts, Navarro has continued to press forward, arguing his case raises significant constitutional questions about executive privilege and the authority of Congress over senior White House advisers.
Background on the Conviction
Navarro was convicted in 2023 on two counts of contempt of Congress—one for failing to provide requested documents and another for refusing to appear for a deposition before the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol breach.
He was sentenced to four months in federal prison, a sentence he has already completed.
Navarro has maintained that during President Donald Trump’s first term, executive privilege was invoked, preventing him from complying with the congressional subpoena.
However, the trial judge ruled that Navarro failed to demonstrate the privilege had been formally asserted by President Trump and barred the defense from raising the issue during trial.
Appeals Court Pushback
The three-judge panel—made up of two Obama appointees and one judge appointed by President Joe Biden—appeared to side with the lower court’s ruling.
Judge J. Michelle Childs questioned whether Navarro could legitimately assert privilege without first appearing before Congress or knowing precisely what testimony or documents were being requested.
“A person responding to a subpoena should show up,” Childs said, “and then assert whatever privilege they believe applies.”
Judge Millett further emphasized that executive privilege belongs to the president, not individual advisers, and questioned whether Navarro had spoken with President Trump before invoking it.
When asked if there was evidence of such contact, Brand conceded there was not.
Justice Department Steps Aside
The Department of Justice informed the court in September that it would no longer defend the prosecution, stating it would not take “the same position as the prior administration.” The DOJ did not publicly explain the reasoning behind its decision.
After the government withdrew, Navarro asked the court to appoint an independent legal advocate to argue the opposing side. While prosecutors supported the request, the appeals court rejected it, ruling that the government’s withdrawal ended its role in the case.
Potential Supreme Court Implications
Navarro’s appeal could eventually intersect with a similar case involving former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, who is also challenging a contempt of Congress conviction.
Bannon filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this fall. The justices have asked the government to respond by January 9, signaling that broader questions about congressional power and executive privilege may soon reach the nation’s highest court.
