Overview
- All three judges questioned Peter Navarro’s reliance on executive privilege, noting the trial court found no evidence the president specifically invoked it for his subpoena.
- The Justice Department reversed its prior position and asked the court to appoint outside counsel to defend the conviction, a request the judges declined.
- With no government advocate present, Navarro’s attorney was the only voice at argument, a posture the court described as unusual.
- Judge Patricia Millett emphasized that executive privilege belongs to the president to invoke and warned against courts inferring an invocation from a thin record.
- Judge J. Michelle Childs said a privilege claim does not excuse ignoring a subpoena, as Navarro has already served a four‑month sentence and may seek Supreme Court review while Steve Bannon’s related case awaits a DOJ response due Jan. 9.