FILE — Former Trump White House trade advisor Peter Navarro arrives at the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Federal Courthouse, in Washington, Aug. 28, 2023. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
Former Trump White House trade advisor Peter Navarro on Monday lost a last-ditch bid with the U.S. Supreme Court to stay out of prison while he appeals his contempt of Congress conviction.
Navarro will now have to report to a federal prison in Miami by Tuesday afternoon where he will serve a four-month sentence.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who handles emergency requests for Washington, D.C., federal cases, issued the terse, one-paragraph ruling in an atypical “in-chambers opinion” saying he found “no basis to disagree with” a prior appeals court ruling on the release issue.
“The Court of Appeals disposed of the proceeding on the ground that Navarro ‘forfeited’ any argument in this release proceeding challenging the District Court’s conclusion that ‘executive privilege was not invoked,'” Roberts explained.
Late last week, a panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied the defendant’s request — instead ordering him to surrender to federal lockup authorities by March 19.
Navarro’s emergency application cited “the unprecedented nature” of his conviction — arguments that Roberts did not even address.
“Dr. Navarro 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,” the application reads. “To be clear, the District Court found that Dr. Navarro reasonably believed he was obligated to assert executive privilege on behalf of former President Donald Trump and there is no dispute that Dr. Navarro actually asserted executive privilege in response to the congressional subpoena he received.”
The House Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol believed Navarro had information relevant to the probe on the events leading up to, during, and after the pro-Trump riots.
When Navarro was asked for such records by Congress, he did not comply voluntarily. When facing the threat of subpoena, he did not comply. When finally under subpoena, he also failed to comply.
An essayed executive privilege defense did not pan out when charges were eventually filed — for factual and procedural reasons. Trump never supplied Navarro or the court with evidence that he claimed executive privilege — or that Trump planned to claim executive privilege over what his former trade specialist might testify about.
And, instead of showing up to Congress to claim the privilege, Navarro more or less just ignored his subpoenas, a court determined.
In September 2023, he was found guilty on two counts of contempt of Congress — following a daylong trial and four hours of deliberations.
More Law&Crime coverage: ‘Utmost importance’: Trump demands RICO judge allow immediate appeal of decision keeping Fani Willis on case
In January, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta sentenced the 74-year-old to four months in prison and a fine of $9,500 for his stonewalling.
In his request to the Supreme Court, Navarro claimed that the judge did not let him present a complete defense while giving the state unrestricted freedom.
From the stay request, in detail (emphasis in original):
Moreover, the district court precluded Dr. Navarro from presenting any evidence in his defense explaining that even though he did in fact default on the congressional subpoena, he felt duty-bound to assert executive (the district court acknowledged that Dr. Navarro at the very least thought he had invoked), while simultaneously allowing the government to summarize its case to the jury as Dr. Navarro’s assertion of executive privilege unequivocally did not excuse him from complying with the subpoena and his failure to do so put him, “above the law.”
During the trial, the defense — struggling from pretrial rulings on the privilege — did not call any witnesses or present any evidence.
In Monday’s opinion, Roberts agreed with the appeals court that “Navarro gave up” various arguments “in the release proceedings” on executive privilege but compared the pre-appeal release case with the defendant’s broader appeal on the merits.