• The U.S. Court of Appeals rejected Steve Bannon’s latest attempt to overturn his contempt of Congress convictions, upholding the controversial Licavoli v. United States precedent that limits certain defense arguments.
• Bannon’s legal team argued his refusal to comply with subpoenas was based on advice regarding executive privilege, but the court ruled this defense inadmissible under the current legal standard.
• Despite dissent from three judges criticizing the outdated precedent, the ruling solidifies limitations on defenses in contempt cases, leaving Bannon with few legal options.

In a significant blow to Steve Bannon, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected his latest attempt to overturn his contempt of Congress convictions, stemming from his refusal to comply with subpoenas issued by the now-defunct House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack. The court’s decision further solidifies precedent barring certain defense arguments in contempt cases.

The ruling, issued on Tuesday, denied en banc review of Bannon’s convictions, which were handed down in July 2022 for his failure to cooperate with the committee investigating the Capitol riot. Despite being a split decision, with three dissenting judges, the court upheld a controversial 1961 precedent, Licavoli v. United States, which limits the defenses available to individuals charged with contempt of Congress.

Why Bannon Fought the Convictions

Bannon, President Trump’s former chief strategist, argued that his refusal to comply with the subpoenas was based on advice from his attorney, who claimed the requests implicated executive privilege. Bannon maintained this defense throughout his trial, asserting that he acted in good faith while awaiting court clarification on privilege issues.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

However, the Licavoli precedent, which defines “willfully” in the context of contempt as a “deliberate intention” to disobey, blocked him from presenting an advice-of-counsel defense. Bannon’s legal team has repeatedly challenged this interpretation, arguing it unfairly hamstrings defendants from explaining their actions.

A Long Line of Legal Defeats

After his October 2022 conviction, Bannon was sentenced to four months in prison. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, initially allowed Bannon to remain free pending appeals. Over the next two years, Bannon pursued every legal avenue, including appeals to the D.C. Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, but all efforts were denied.

In June 2024, Judge Nichols revoked Bannon’s bail, siding with federal prosecutors who argued that his appeals were unlikely to succeed. Despite further attempts to delay his sentence and gain early release, Bannon has remained unsuccessful.

The Divided Court and Dissenting Opinions

Tuesday’s ruling was not without its controversies. In a lengthy dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, another Trump appointee, argued that the Licavoli precedent is outdated and inconsistent with how other contempt statutes are interpreted.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

“I would grant rehearing en banc to overrule Licavoli,” Rao wrote. She asserted that under a proper interpretation, prosecutors would need to prove Bannon knew his conduct was unlawful, allowing him to introduce evidence of his good faith reliance on legal advice.

Rao’s dissent was joined by U.S. Circuit Judges Justin Walker and Karen L. Henderson, with Walker fully agreeing and Henderson concurring on the sharp critique of Licavoli. Rao emphasized that the statute’s use of the term “willfully” implies a higher standard of intent than the court recognized.

The statute in question reads:

“Every person who, having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress … willfully makes default … shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.”

In contrast to the dissent, four judges, including U.S. Circuit Judge Bradley N. Garcia, a Biden appointee, defended the Licavoli precedent in a concurring opinion. Garcia cited the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to argue that “willfully” can simply mean deliberate action rather than accidental omission.

“Without the ‘willfully’ qualifier, the statute could have been read to criminalize those defaults too,” Garcia wrote, emphasizing that the law aims to encourage compliance with congressional investigations.

What’s Next for Bannon?

Bannon’s legal team has not indicated whether it will attempt another appeal, but dissenting judges suggested this issue is ripe for the Supreme Court. U.S. Circuit Judge Gregory G. Katsas, while voting to deny en banc review, expressed reservations about Licavoli, stating that overturning the precedent may be best left to the high court.

Legal Implications and Broader Impact

This case underscores the tension between Congress’s investigatory powers and individual rights in responding to subpoenas. Critics argue that the Licavoli precedent places undue restrictions on defendants, while supporters see it as essential to protecting the integrity of congressional investigations.

For individuals like Bannon, the ruling means limited options to challenge contempt charges based on legal advice or misunderstandings. As congressional inquiries remain a key tool in holding officials accountable, the balance between enforcement and fairness will likely continue to spark debate.

As this legal saga unfolds, we’ll keep you updated on any developments. If you found this article informative, please leave a comment or share it with others. For real-time updates on stories like this, Follow The Dupree Report on WhatsApp.

Stay tuned for more coverage and let us know your thoughts below!

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10