“Proud to represent Peter Navarro, who turned down a pardon to vindicate his case in court,” Kambli wrote in a post on X. “This is an important case that can set precedent for years to come.”

Navarro, who served as a senior trade adviser during Trump’s first administration, was indicted by the Biden DOJ in 2022 after refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. A federal jury convicted him in 2023 on two counts of contempt of Congress, and he was sentenced in 2024 to four months in prison and ordered to pay nearly $10,000.

Although Navarro completed his sentence, his appeal has remained pending before a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel consisting of Judges Patricia Millett and Cornelia Pillard, both appointees of former President Barack Obama, and J. Michelle Childs, an appointee of former President Joe Biden.

His case took an unusual turn last year after the Trump DOJ informed the court it no longer agreed with the Biden administration’s position defending the conviction. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro told the court the government sought to withdraw its appellate brief and asked judges to appoint an outside attorney to defend the lower court’s judgment instead.

The D.C. Circuit granted the request to strike the government’s brief but declined to appoint outside counsel, leaving the government withdrawn from further participation in the appeal.

Rather than seeking dismissal, however, Navarro is asking the appeals court to decide the case on its merits.

In a letter filed Thursday, Kambli notified the court of what he described as supplemental authority stemming from the Supreme Court’s April order in Bannon v. United States. After the Trump DOJ moved to dismiss Bannon’s indictment, the high court vacated the appellate judgment against the former Trump adviser and returned the case to the lower court for dismissal.

Navarro, however, “does not seek a similar resolution in his case,” Kambli wrote. “Instead, he continues to seek prompt resolution of this appeal on the merits.”

Kambli’s letter notes that Bannon’s Supreme Court petition raised significant questions about the meaning of the word “willfully” in the federal contempt of Congress statute, an issue Navarro has repeatedly argued is central to his own appeal. The statute makes it a crime if a witness “willfully makes default” over a congressional subpoena, and Navarro contends that because he believed he was following Trump’s assertion of executive privilege, his conduct did not meet that requirement.

Kambli’s appearance marks his first entry into a court case since leaving the DOJ for Holtzman Vogel, a Republican-aligned law firm that frequently handles politically significant litigation and election law matters.

SUPREME COURT SETS UP DISMISSAL OF STEVE BANNON’S CONTEMPT CONVICTION

Before joining private practice, Kambli defended the Trump administration in several of its highest-profile legal battles, including appeals involving executive orders targeting major law firms and litigation over the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members.

Navarro had previously been represented by Stanley Woodward Jr., who later became associate attorney general under Trump after serving as senior counsel to the president. Woodward and Kambli worked together at the Justice Department before Kambli’s move to private practice.