The Department of Justice (DOJ) has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reject Steve Bannon’s emergency appeal to delay his prison sentence. Bannon, a former Trump White House chief strategist, is scheduled to report to prison by July to serve a four-month sentence for defying a congressional subpoena related to the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
In a legal filing on Wednesday, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that Bannon’s case does not meet the “extraordinary” criteria required to justify his remaining free while he appeals his contempt of Congress conviction. Prelogar emphasized that Bannon “responded to the subpoena with total noncompliance: he did not produce any documents and refused to appear for his scheduled deposition.”
House Republican leaders have backed Bannon’s request, but the DOJ maintains that his case lacks the necessary grounds for such extraordinary relief. The Trump-aligned America First Legal also filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of Bannon, with Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) joining the effort.
Prelogar noted that the Supreme Court recently denied a similar application for release by another defendant, former Trump adviser Peter Navarro, who also defied a subpoena from the same committee. Navarro began serving his four-month sentence for contempt of Congress in March.
Bannon’s legal team has raised two primary issues in their filing with the Supreme Court. First, they argue that Bannon acted in “good faith” on the advice of a lawyer when he defied the subpoena. Despite this argument being rejected by both a jury and the appellate court, Bannon’s attorneys believe it warrants attention from the Supreme Court before he begins his prison sentence.
Second, Bannon’s attorneys point to an “acknowledged circuit split” regarding his emergency request. They highlight a two-to-one decision in which Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, expressed an inclination to keep Bannon out of jail while the Supreme Court weighs his conviction. Bannon’s attorneys argue that any issue on which the circuits disagree is necessarily a substantial question.
However, Prelogar countered that prior Supreme Court cases have consistently found that acting in “good faith” on advice from a lawyer is not a valid defense. She wrote, “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.”
Prelogar also disputed the claim that a split decision in a lower court automatically raises substantial enough questions for the Supreme Court to postpone Bannon’s imprisonment. She argued that even if it did, it “would not itself be ‘likely to result in’ reversal or a new trial, as the statute requires.”
Bannon’s conviction stems from his refusal to comply with a subpoena from the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. He was convicted nearly two years ago of two counts of contempt of Congress: one for refusing to sit for a deposition and the other for refusing to provide documents related to his involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.
Bannon has cast the case as politically motivated, and his attorney, David Schoen, has argued that the case raises “serious constitutional issues” that need to be examined by the Supreme Court. Bannon’s legal team also contends that there is a “strong public interest” in allowing him to remain free in the run-up to the 2024 election, as he is a top adviser to Trump’s campaign.
However, prosecutors have dismissed this argument, stating that Bannon’s “role in political discourse” is irrelevant. They have requested that the judge overseeing Bannon’s case order him to begin his prison sentence, following the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ conclusive ruling that rejected the basis for Bannon’s appeal on all grounds.
The district court in Washington initially allowed Bannon to remain free while his appeals process played out. However, the forceful nature of the appellate court’s response prompted the district court to lift its temporary pause on Bannon’s sentence and order him to report to prison.
Bannon attempted to stave off the prison order in an emergency request to the appellate court, but a three-judge panel denied the request in a split decision. Bannon then filed an eleventh-hour motion with the Supreme Court, seeking intervention just days before he is scheduled to report to a penitentiary in Danbury, Connecticut.
The Supreme Court has asked the DOJ to respond to Bannon’s request by Wednesday, just days before the court is set to begin its summer recess. The court previously denied a similar request from another former Trump adviser, Peter Navarro, shortly after receiving a response in March.
As the legal battle continues, the DOJ remains firm in its stance that Bannon should serve his prison sentence without delay. The outcome of this case will likely have significant implications for the enforcement of congressional subpoenas and the accountability of those who defy them.
Source: Axios, CNN, The Washington Examiner, The Guardian
