Last Friday, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit upheld the conviction of former President Trump’s ex-advisor, Steve Bannon, for contempt of Congress. A conviction that derived from his refusal to comply with a US House of Representatives subpoena related to the investigation of the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.
In the summer of 2021, the House passed House Resolution 503, establishing a House committee with the authorization to issue subpoenas for testimony, documents, and propose any necessary legislation based on its investigation. Notably, the committee found Bannon had discussed efforts to overturn the 2020 election results close to January 6, 2021 and issued him a subpoena for documents and testimony related to his communications with Trump and others. Bannon’s non-compliance with the subpoena led to his conviction for contempt of Congress and an eight-month prison sentence with a $6,500 fine.
Bannon appealed his conviction on four grounds:
- Accusing the district court of erroneously defining the mental state required for a contempt of Congress charge.
- Claiming his behavior was affirmatively sanctioned by government officials.
- Arguing the committee’s subpoena was invalid.
- Protesting against the trial court’s decision to quash certain trial subpoenas meant to develop evidence for his defense.
Bannon’s argument was that the trial court had misinterpreted the term “willfully” from 2 U.S.C. § 192, the contempt-of-Congress statute, defining it to mean “deliberately” and “intentionally” without the inclusion of “in good faith”. Bannon posited that his refusal to answer the subpoena was not “willful” as he had acted in good faith, based on his lawyer’s advice. However, the court deemed this argument invalid as the defense of good faith, particularly when based on an attorney’s advice, had already been dismissed in previous cases, such as Licavoli v. United States.
The court also rejected Bannon’s claim that his actions were authorized by government officials, as the statute does not allow for a defense based on an attorney’s advice. Likewise, his objections to the committee’s subpoena were dismissed as he did not raise them before the committee and hence forfeited his objections. The court stressed that bringing up objections in an untimely manner not only obstructs the committee’s processes but also undermines its authority.
As for the defense subpoenas issued by Bannon, the court maintained that they were rightly quashed since they sought information irrelevant to the case. Bannon attempted to glean details about the political motives of committee members which the court found immaterial to the contempt offense and any applicable affirmative defenses.
In order to have his conviction overturned, Bannon must file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court within 90 days following the judgment of the appellate court.