Peter Navarro is continuing his quest to overturn his contempt conviction by raising a "question of exceptional importance" that would ultimately be for the Supreme Court to resolve.
Fresh off a resounding loss on appeal weeks ago, President Donald Trump's senior counselor on trade and manufacturing has filed a petition for a rehearing by the full — en banc — D.C. Circuit.
Pointing out that the court denied Steve Bannon's contempt-related en banc petition last year, Navarro said his case is proof "this issue has already reoccurred" in a short period of time and that "it promises not to be the last time" given the "politically charged climate."
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
Navarro served four months in jail after failing at each level of the federal court system to prevent that outcome following his conviction in January 2024 on two misdemeanor counts of criminally stonewalling the Jan. 6 Committee's subpoena.
Neither appearing for a deposition nor producing documents, Navarro asserted executive privilege — which is for the president to invoke — "without consulting anyone" and without seeing the subpoena at issue.
Like Bannon, Navarro is trying to upset the precedent in Licavoli v. United States, a case that interpreted the word "willfully" in the contempt of Congress statute to mean a "deliberate and intentional" default on appearing, rather than to require "bad faith."
Navarro's appellate attorney Abhishek Kambli, who left the DOJ after defending Trump's law firm executive orders at the D.C. Circuit in May, submits that "Licavoli is wrong" and Navarro should have been "allowed to present evidence and argument that his default lacked unlawful intent."
"In criminal statutes, the default meaning of 'willfully' requires proof that the defendant knew his actions were unlawful," the filing said, emphasizing that Navarro "believed that President Trump had invoked executive privilege and prevented him from responding."
"And contrary to what the panel believed, Navarro was entitled to present this defense regardless of his odds of success," the petition added, stating that should be the rule for former executive branch officials "regardless of political party."
Navarro called attention to a statement U.S. Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas wrote in the court's rejection of Bannon's petition to say the jurist was "right" — this "has become a serious problem."
Katsas, a former deputy White House counsel Trump appointed to the D.C. Circuit, indicated that "problem" is one only SCOTUS can "fix."
"If section 192 authorizes criminal liability for good-faith but mistaken assertions of unconstitutionality, then it likewise must authorize liability for good-faith but mistaken assertions of privilege," he said. "In other words, the current breadth of section 192 traces as much to Helen Bryan as to Licavoli. So, any problematic overbreadth is something that only the Supreme Court can fix."
The post Trump's trade adviser comes right back to court with 'a serious problem' to solve after appeal of contempt conviction makes no headway first appeared on Law & Crime.