Appeals court rejects Peter Navarro bid to rehear contempt challenge
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied White House trade adviser Peter Navarro’s request to rehear his contempt of Congress case, meaning he will next appeal to the Supreme Court. Navarro’s attorney indicated that the case was always heading to the Supreme Court. Navarro was convicted in 2023 for refusing to testify before the January 6 committee, with his appeal focusing on the interpretation of the word “willfully” in the federal contempt statute, which requires proof of unlawful intent. His legal team argued that the government should prove Navarro knew his conduct was unlawful or had bad motives, not just that he intentionally did not appear. The appeals court upheld Navarro’s convictions, stating he did not invoke executive priviledge at the direction of President Trump. Navarro maintained he acted on a good-faith belief that executive privilege excused his actions, raising broader concerns about weather White House advisers can be prosecuted for such beliefs. The case is part of wider legal developments involving similar contempt cases, including Steve Bannon’s, whose conviction was vacated by the Supreme Court but questioned in ongoing proceedings.
The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied White House trade adviser Peter Navarro’s request to rehear his contempt of Congress case, leaving the Supreme Court as his next avenue for challenging the conviction.
The appeals court’s Friday order said no judge requested a vote on Navarro’s petition for rehearing en banc, meaning review by the full court. Navarro’s attorney, Abhishek Kambli, said in a statement that the case “was always headed to the Supreme Court.”
Recommended Stories
” data-large-file=”https://www.conservativenewsdaily.net/breaking-news/wp-content/uploads//2026/08/localimages/AP26204742846965.jpg?w=696″ “https:>
“The D.C. Circuit’s denial simply clears the runway,” Kambli added.
Navarro’s petition centered on the word “willfully” in the federal contempt statute, which criminalizes a witness’s intentional default on a congressional subpoena. His lawyers argued the government should have had to prove that Navarro knew his conduct was unlawful or acted with a bad motive, rather than just that he intentionally did not appear before the now-defunct House Jan. 6 committee.
Kambli has argued that a 1961 D.C. Circuit decision, Licavoli v. United States, set too low a bar by treating an intentional failure to appear as enough for conviction. He contends that later Supreme Court cases have generally interpreted “willful” criminal conduct to require a bad or unlawful purpose.
A three-judge D.C. Circuit panel unanimously upheld Navarro’s two felony convictions last month. The panel found that Navarro invoked executive privilege without direction from President Donald Trump and did not establish that Trump instructed him to withhold testimony or records. Navarro was convicted in 2023 and served a four-month federal prison sentence in 2024.
Kambli said Navarro should have been allowed to tell jurors that he acted on a good-faith belief that executive privilege excused his noncompliance.
TRUMP TRADE ADVISER SEEKS FULL COURT REHEARING IN JAN. 6 COMMITTEE CONTEMPT CASE
“The issue is bigger than Dr. Navarro,” Kambli said. “Whether a White House adviser — Republican or Democrat — can be prosecuted and imprisoned for acting on a good-faith belief that a President invoked executive privilege, while being forbidden from presenting that belief to the jury.”
The development followed a separate contempt case involving Steve Bannon. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols this week rejected, for now, the Justice Department’s request to dismiss Bannon’s case after the Supreme Court vacated his conviction in April. That ruling concerned the Trump administration’s effort to end Bannon’s case and does not implicate Navarro’s challenge over what he calls an unfair legal standard applied during his separate trial.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
