EXCLUSIVE — White House trade adviser Peter Navarro on Tuesday asked the full federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., to reconsider its decision upholding his contempt of Congress conviction, arguing a three-judge panel that ruled against him relied on outdated precedent that wrongly narrowed his ability to defend himself at trial.
Navarro’s attorney, Abhishek Kambli, filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit after a three-judge panel dealt a blow to his long-running appeal last month. One of the central focuses of his new petition is the meaning of “willfully” in the federal contempt statute, which prosecutors under the Biden administration used to convict Navarro after he declined to comply with a subpoena from the long-defunct House Jan. 6 committee.
The statute, 2 U.S.C § 192, criminalizes a witness who “willfully” defaults on a congressional subpoena. Navarro’s legal team argues the government should have been required to prove he knew his conduct was unlawful or acted with a bad motive rather than merely that he intentionally did not appear, according to a copy of the petition shared exclusively with the Washington Examiner ahead of its filing.
“Almost every Supreme Court case has said the word ‘willful’ requires that you do it with a bad or an evil motive,” Kambli told the Washington Examiner. He argued that a 1961 D.C. Circuit decision, Licavoli v. United States, adopted a much lower standard that treats an intentional failure to appear as sufficient for conviction.
Kambli said that precedent is now in tension with decades of Supreme Court rulings interpreting willfulness under criminal law, and that the full appeals court should revisit it.
A three-judge D.C. Circuit panel unanimously affirmed Navarro’s two felony convictions last month. The panel found that Navarro asserted executive privilege without receiving direction from President Donald Trump and failed to establish that Trump instructed him to withhold testimony or records from the committee.
Navarro was convicted in 2023 and served a four-month federal prison sentence in 2024. He has continued challenging the conviction even after the Trump Department of Justice withdrew the government’s appellate defense of the case.
It is not immediately clear whether the DOJ will take a position on Navarro’s new petition or, if it does, whether it will continue defending the conviction. The department is now led by the Trump administration, rather than the Biden administration that prosecuted Navarro, a shift that could place the DOJ closer to his position.
If the department sides with Navarro, the D.C. Circuit could appoint outside counsel as an amicus to test the government’s previously advanced arguments. That would be an unusual step, but not an unprecedented one.
Last year, a federal judge in Manhattan appointed former Solicitor General Paul Clement as a court-appointed amicus after Trump’s DOJ moved to dismiss the criminal corruption case against then-New York City Mayor Eric Adams, which had been brought during Attorney General Merrick Garland’s tenure. The outside lawyer was asked to address the DOJ’s request and the legal standards governing it. The court later dismissed the Adams case with prejudice.
Navarro’s petition also contends that the trial judge wrongly barred him from presenting evidence and argument that he acted in good faith based on his belief that executive privilege prevented him from responding to the subpoena.
“Our view is that all that’s required is a good-faith belief that he’s acting on executive privilege,” Kambli said. “If he believed that in good faith, then there is no bad motive to convict him.”
The issue divided members of the D.C. Circuit in former Trump adviser and War Room podcaster Steve Bannon’s contempt case last year. Kambli said the question reaches beyond Trump-era officials because executive privilege disputes can arise under either party when Congress and the White House are controlled by opposing political coalitions.
“This decision actually protects people of both political parties,” Kambli said. “It’s something that is likely to recur, especially given how politically charged the climate is right now.”
PETER NAVARRO CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS CONVICTION UPHELD BY APPEALS COURT
Republicans currently maintain narrow majorities in both legislative bodies, though the outcome of the November midterm elections could alter the power balance. If the party loses the House, Democrats are expected to use their investigative powers and may attempt to compel current or former Trump administration officials to testify under oath.
The Washington Examiner contacted the DOJ for a response.