Roberts refuses to delay prison for Trump aide Peter Navarro

WASHINGTON (CN) — Chief Justice John Roberts refused on Monday to delay former Trump adviser Peter Navarro’s four-month prison sentence for contempt of Congress. 

Without referring Navarro's emergency application to the full court, Roberts said he saw no reason to diverge from the D.C. Circuit's ruling. The appeals court said Navarro could not use an executive privilege claim to avoid prison time because he failed to make that claim in a deposition before the Jan. 6 committee.

"I see no basis to disagree with the determination that Navarro forfeited those arguments in the release proceeding, which is distinct from his pending appeal on the merits," Roberts wrote.

Navarro, who is scheduled to report to prison Tuesday, will now have to appeal his conviction from behind bars. 

The Jan. 6 special committee subpoenaed Navarro in 2022, ordering him to testify and produce documents related to the Capitol insurrection. The committee suspected Navarro, who worked in the administration as a senior trade adviser, had helped to develop the plan to delay Congress’ certification of the 2020 election results. 

Navarro refused to produce any documents or testify about his knowledge of events on Jan. 6. He told the committee that his hands were tied by executive privilege. 

The committee rejected this explanation but told Navarro he would still have to appear before the committee to claim executive privilege on a question-by-question basis. Navarro did not show up. 

A grand jury indicted Navarro on two counts of contempt of Congress, citing his refusal to provide documents and appear for testimony. Navarro unsuccessfully tried to dismiss his charges, again citing executive privilege. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta said Navarro could not use executive privilege as a defense because he could not prove the former president invoked this privilege for Navarro. 

A jury found Navarro guilty on both counts. He was sentenced to four months in prison. 

After the D.C. Circuit refused to delay his sentence, Navarro turned to the Supreme Court. He argued that the lower courts erred in finding that executive privilege claims relied on invocation from the former president. Navarro said this was an open question that could be answered on appeal. 

“This is an important distinction because the prosecution of a senior presidential adviser for contempt of Congress following an assertion of executive privilege contravenes the separation of powers doctrine,” Navarro, represented by Stan Brand with Brand Woodward Law, wrote in his emergency appeal. 

Navarro said he should be able to delay his sentence since he was neither a flight risk nor a danger to public safety. 

The Justice Department said Navarro did not meet the requirements to be released on bail. The government said the lower court correctly determined that Navarro violated a congressional subpoena. The Justice Department said that even if Navarro prevailed on his executive privilege claim, he had still refused to appear to assert that privilege. 

“Even if he had, any claim of privilege would have been overcome by the committee’s need for the requested documents and testimony,” U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote. “And at all events, even a successful claim of privilege would not excuse applicant’s total failure to comply with the subpoena.” 

Follow @KelseyReichmann

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit