Peter Navarro seeks Supreme Court review as Trump allies brace

EXCLUSIVE — White House trade adviser Peter Navarro asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to review his conviction for contempt of Congress in a challenge that holds the potential to strengthen the defenses available to Trump administration officials facing subpoenas if Democrats retake the House in November.

America First Legal and Holtzman Vogel filed a joint petition on Navarro’s behalf, asking the nine justices to require prosecutors to prove that a witness knew defying a congressional subpoena was unlawful. According to a copy first obtained by the Washington Examiner, lawyers argued that he should have been allowed to present evidence that he believed executive privilege prevented him from cooperating with the House Jan. 6 committee, even if that belief was mistaken.

Congress wrote this rule for radio. Write it again for social media platforms

Pfizer said ‘no impact on fertility.’ The data said ‘we didn’t check’

I’m a doctor, and I’m sick of watching my patients go bankrupt just to stay alive

“High-ranking officials should not have to worry about going to jail for a good-faith belief that executive privilege prohibited them from complying with a congressional subpoena,” the 151-word petition reads.

The request carries implications far beyond Navarro’s effort to overturn the two misdemeanor convictions for which he served four months in federal prison in 2024. His petition arrives as Democrats in Washington are preparing investigations for a possible return to House control in January 2027, while President Donald Trump ’s allies are organizing legal defenses for officials who could be called to testify or produce records.

A ruling adopting Navarro’s position would raise the government’s burden in criminal contempt cases and allow defendants to contest whether they knowingly broke the law. It would leave Congress ’s subpoena authority intact but could give administration officials another line of defense if disputes over executive privilege led to prosecution.

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee ranking member, has identified Trump family business dealings, the administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, and immigration enforcement among his investigative priorities, according to a September report by the Associated Press. Democrats are also preparing to pursue information from businesses outside the administration.

Republican allies have begun preparing for that possibility.

The Washington Examiner reported last month that the Oversight Project was recruiting lawyers to defend Trump allies and administration officials. Former Justice Department official Jeff Clark said he would lead a new law firm under the organization’s banner to challenge what he described as abuses of congressional oversight, disciplinary proceedings, and criminal prosecutions.

Navarro’s case seeks a change in the legal standard that those lawyers could invoke.

The petition argues the legal dispute centers on the word “willfully” in the federal contempt statute used against Navarro. Under the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals’s interpretation, prosecutors must establish that a witness deliberately failed to comply with a subpoena. They do not have to prove the witness understood that refusal was illegal.

“If a White House adviser can go to prison for honoring what he believed was the president’s claim of executive privilege, then no adviser will ever again give a president candid advice,” Navarro told the Washington Examiner, adding, “This petition is not just about me. The Supreme Court should take the case to address this serious separation of powers issue.”

Navarro’s lawyers argued that a 1961 decision, Licavoli v. United States, set the wrong standard and conflicts with later Supreme Court decisions interpreting willfulness in criminal laws, including Ratzlaf v. United States (1994), Bryan v. United States (1998), and Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Burr (2007).

The petition also drew a distinction between two provisions of the contempt statute. One provision punishes “willfully” defaulting on a subpoena, while the other addresses witnesses who appear but refuse to answer pertinent questions. Giving both provisions the same intent requirement, they argued, deprives “willfully” of independent meaning.

Navarro’s lawyers contend that the trial judge improperly instructed the jury that his understanding of executive privilege could not provide a defense, thereby preventing jurors from considering evidence they argue was directly relevant to whether he was guilty.

The petition argued that Navarro was entitled to present that defense regardless of whether it would have persuaded the jury.

America First Legal President Gene Hamilton accused the Biden administration ’s Justice Department of using the prosecution to punish a political opponent.

“The Supreme Court should take this case and reverse the conviction,” Hamilton said in a statement announcing the petition.

Navarro was convicted in September 2023 after failing to provide documents or appear for a deposition before the committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Investigators sought information about his public descriptions of efforts to delay certification of Trump’s 2020 election defeat.

A three-judge D.C. Circuit panel unanimously upheld the convictions in July. The full court denied rehearing Aug. 28, with no judge requesting a vote.

The appeals court found that Navarro had not established that Trump invoked executive privilege for the committee’s subpoena. It also emphasized that some requested information concerned Navarro’s public statements and private activities, which were not protected by the privilege.

Navarro first asserted executive privilege “unilaterally without consulting with or receiving direction from President Trump,” Judge Patricia Millett wrote for the panel.

The petition more specifically seeks review of the separate question of whether Navarro’s belief that he was protected should have been considered by the jury, regardless of whether privilege was properly invoked.

Navarro’s lawyer, Abhishek Kambli, emphasized that broader objective after the appeals court denied rehearing in August.

“The issue is bigger than Dr. Navarro,” Kambli said at the time. “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.”

Democratic control of the House would not, by itself, give the party authority to bring federal criminal charges. Enforcement of the criminal contempt statute runs through the Justice Department, which has maintained that prosecutors retain discretion over congressional referrals.

The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions each year and must first decide whether to hear the challenge before considering whether to change that standard.