Supreme Court won’t delay Bannon prison sentence 

WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court on Friday rejected former Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s emergency appeal to avoid reporting for his four-month prison sentence on July 1.

The co-founder of the far-right website Breitbart News had argued to the justices that without their intervention, he would be forced to serve his entire contempt of Congress sentence before his appeal concluded.

In July 2022, a jury convicted Bannon of refusing to comply with a subpoena from the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack. The former chief strategist for President Donald Trump’s initially claimed his testimony would have been protected under executive privilege, but both the House panel and the Justice Department disputed that argument, noting Bannon was consulting Trump as a private citizen after being fired from the White House in 2017. 

Bannon argued on appeal that his attorney advised him to ignore the subpoena because of executive privilege issues and claimed that the lower court erred by keeping out evidence about his good-faith reliance on his lawyer's advice. 

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Donald Trump appointee, said D.C. Circuit precedent in Licavoli v. United States bars using this defense when has someone willfully defied a congressional subpoena. Bannon said clarity was needed on what qualified a mens rea or state of mind when willfully defying a congressional subpoena. 

A three-judge panel upheld the conviction unanimously, but Bannon’s motion to remain free pending appeal resulted in some disagreement: U.S. Circuit Judge Justin Walker dissented from the panel’s denial, noting D.C. Circuit precedent doesn't hold water at the Supreme Court. 

“Because the Supreme Court is not bound by Licavoli, because Licavoli’s interpretation of ‘willfully’ is a close question, and because that question may well be material, Bannon should not go to prison before the Supreme Court considers his forthcoming petition for certiorari,” Walker wrote in the June 20 ruling.

Bannon seized on this statement, reasoning that there was a good chance the justices would agree to review the legal disagreement. The government said the dispute wasn't reason enough to delay Bannon’s prison sentence and that it was unlikely his appeal would lead to a reversal or new trial because the court already rejected his contention. 

“A uniform line of cases from this court confirms that the mental state for contempt of Congress under Section 192 requires only a deliberate or intentional act, and does not recognize a defense for good-faith reliance on the advice of counsel,” U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote. 

In March, former Trump adviser Peter Navarro lost a similar emergency appeal at the high court. Also convicted on a contempt of Congress offense, Navarro advanced an executive privilege claim, but the justices' rejection forced him to report for this four-month prison sentence. 

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