Peter Navarro, the former trade adviser to Donald Trump, is urging Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch to reconsider Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision. Navarro is seeking permission to remain out of prison while he appeals his contempt of Congress conviction.
Navarro, aged 74, turned himself in to authorities on March 19th and commenced serving a four-month prison sentence at the low-security FCI Miami prison in Florida. He was convicted on two counts of criminal contempt of Congress after he refused to provide testimony or documentary evidence upon request from the House select committee investigating the January 6th attack on the US Capitol.
He promised to enter prison with pride and informed journalists that he would draw strength from the experience.
After spending only 15 days in prison, his lawyers, Stan Brand and Stanley Woodward, took a bold step and submitted a filing to the DC Circuit. In their plea, they respectfully asked for a reconsideration of the Chief Justice’s denial in an attempt to secure his release.
In cases where one justice rejects an emergency application, parties are allowed to appeal to another justice, as per the rules of the Supreme Court. However, it is important to note that such appeals are rarely granted.
Legal analyst Steve Vladeck pointed out that the court’s rules technically allow for the possibility of renewing an application with a second justice, in response to the filing.
“In reality, however, the court automatically refers such filings to the full court and then proceeds to reject them. The chances of these filings succeeding are exactly 0.0 percent.”
Navarro has requested the Supreme Court to grant him the permission to stay out of custody while he challenges the rulings made by US district judge Amit Mehta and a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Both of these courts had previously dismissed Navarro’s claims of executive privilege, stating that there was no evidence that former President Trump had ever asserted such privilege before the committee or in federal court.
Chief Justice Roberts stated that the Court of Appeals dismissed the case because Navarro had forfeited his right to challenge the District Court’s ruling on executive privilege. The Court found that Navarro had also forfeited his right to challenge the conclusion that relief was not necessary due to the qualified nature of executive privilege. Additionally, Navarro had forfeited his right to challenge the obligation to appear before Congress and answer questions that went beyond the scope of the asserted privilege.
According to him, there is no reason to dispute the conclusion that Navarro lost those arguments during the release proceeding, separate from his ongoing appeal on the merits.
