Peter Navarro, a former trade advisor to ex-President Donald Trump, reported to a federal prison in Miami on Tuesday, marking the start of his four-month sentence. This action follows his conviction for contempt of Congress after he defied a congressional subpoena.
Navarro’s surrender to the Miami facility occurred a day after Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts turned down his last-ditch effort to remain free while he appeals his conviction. Inside the prison, identified as a Miami facility housing older inmates, Navarro is expected to have limited access to communication, including email and phone.
Prior to entering the prison, Navarro held a press conference near the facility, reiterating his stance that his case is an “unprecedented assault” on the separation of powers and executive privilege. He asserted that his imprisonment would significantly damage the constitutional separation of powers and executive privilege.
Navarro, who plans to appeal his conviction up to the Supreme Court, attributed his legal troubles to “Trump-haters” in the judiciary and prosecution. However, there is no factual basis to support the claim that his prosecution was driven by political motivations. He criticized a ruling that prevented him from presenting certain defenses during his trial, a point that forms a key part of his ongoing appeal.
It is noteworthy that Navarro is the first former White House official to be imprisoned for contempt of Congress.
The Charges and Conviction: Defying the January 6th Committee
Navarro’s legal woes stem from his refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The committee sought both documents and testimony from Navarro regarding his activities after the 2020 election and his involvement in efforts to postpone the certification of Electoral College votes.
In January, Navarro received a four-month prison sentence for contempt of Congress. He subsequently appealed both his conviction and the trial judge’s decision to enforce the sentence during the appeal process. Navarro has consistently argued that he believed he was protected by executive privilege when he declined to cooperate with the committee’s subpoena. However, the judge in his case determined that there was no evidence that executive privilege had actually been invoked in this instance.
Before reporting to federal prison in Miami on Tuesday, Navarro’s attempt to delay his sentence was rejected by a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The panel stated that he was unlikely to win a new trial or have his conviction overturned.
Supreme Court Intervention and Executive Privilege Arguments
In a final attempt to avoid immediate imprisonment, Navarro’s legal team appealed to the Supreme Court for emergency relief. They argued that Navarro should remain free during his appeal, emphasizing that he poses no flight risk or threat to public safety. His attorneys argued that Navarro’s case was unique, as he is the “only former senior presidential advisor to be prosecuted for contempt of Congress following an assertion of executive privilege by the president that advisor served.”
They contended that prosecuting Navarro for contempt of Congress violated the separation of powers doctrine, necessitating the reversal of his conviction and the dismissal of the indictment. They further claimed that the questions Navarro raised on appeal, particularly concerning executive privilege, were unprecedented and justified his release pending the appeal outcome. Navarro’s legal team highlighted that never before had the Department of Justice prosecuted a senior presidential advisor for contempt of Congress following an assertion of executive privilege.
The Justice Department opposed Navarro’s request, arguing that he did not meet the requirements for release. Chief Justice Roberts, acting as the justice overseeing emergency requests from the District of Columbia Circuit, sided with the Justice Department. Roberts stated he found “no basis to disagree” with the lower court’s determination that Navarro had “forfeited those arguments” in the release proceedings, distinguishing this from his ongoing appeal.
The Biden administration further clarified that many of the documents sought by the January 6th committee were personal communications and thus unlikely to be covered by executive privilege. They pointed out that Navarro was not contesting the district court’s finding that former President Trump had not actually asserted executive privilege in this case. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that “if privilege was never asserted, it cannot be a defense to the prosecution here.”
Prelogar emphasized that presidents frequently decline to assert executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas. She argued that allowing a subordinate like Navarro to override the president’s decision would “gravely undermine” presidential authority in this process. She refuted Navarro’s claim of being “duty-bound” to assert executive privilege despite Trump’s inaction, stating that this perspective was “exactly backward.”
Contrasting Case: Steve Bannon
While Navarro is the first Trump administration official to be jailed for defying the January 6 Committee, he is not the first to be convicted. Steve Bannon, former White House chief strategist, was also found guilty of two counts of contempt of Congress and received a four-month prison sentence. However, a judge has paused Bannon’s prison term while he pursues his own appeal, citing the possibility of his conviction being overturned.
