Navarro Petitions Full D.C. Circuit to Rehear Contempt Conviction

The en banc petition tests whether executive privilege defenses available at trial were improperly narrowed by the three-judge panel, a question that could affect future congressional subpoena...

White House trade adviser Peter Navarro filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday, asking all active judges on the court to reconsider a three-judge panel's decision upholding his contempt of Congress conviction, according to the Washington Examiner, which first reported the filing. Navarro's attorney, Abhishek Kambli, submitted the petition after the panel ruled against Navarro on his appeal of the conviction stemming from his refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by the House Select Committee investigating the January 6, 2021 Capitol breach.

Navarro's legal argument, as described in the petition, contends that the three-judge panel relied on precedent that incorrectly restricted his ability to present an executive privilege defense at trial. He was convicted of two counts of contempt of Congress — one for defying a subpoena for documents and one for refusing to appear for a deposition — and sentenced to four months in federal prison, which he served in 2024, per prior federal court records in United States v. Navarro, Case No. 22-cr-00200 (D.D.C.).

An en banc rehearing requires a majority of the active judges on the D.C. Circuit to agree to take the case. If granted, the full court would reconsider the panel's ruling from scratch. The D.C. Circuit currently has 11 active judges. No timeline is set by court rule for the court to act on the petition, though denials often come within weeks of filing, per standard D.C. Circuit practice.

The contempt charges originated after Navarro declined to comply with a January 2022 subpoena from the House Select Committee on January 6th, citing a claim that then-President Donald Trump had asserted executive privilege over communications relevant to the committee's inquiry. Federal prosecutors and the trial court found that Navarro failed to establish that Trump had formally invoked the privilege, a factual finding that the three-judge panel did not disturb on appeal, per the panel's published opinion.

What remains unknown is the precise legal standard the full D.C. Circuit would apply if it grants en banc review, and whether the court would revisit the underlying factual findings or limit review to the legal question of how the privilege defense should have been presented to the jury. The court's docket, available through PACER at the U.S. Courts public access portal, would reflect any order granting or denying the petition. A grant of en banc review would carry potential implications for how congressional subpoenas directed at current and former White House officials are enforced going forward.