Judge Brad Garcia, nominated by President Biden to the D.C. Circuit, voted unanimously to uphold the conviction of former Trump adviser Stephen Bannon in contempt of Congress for refusing to produce documents and testify as requested by subpoena. I wrote an opinion paper. Justices appointed by Mr. Trump and Mr. Obama joined in the May 2024 decision in United States v. Bannon.
What is the background of this incident?
As part of its work in September 2021, the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol has issued subpoenas seeking deposition testimony and documents from Stephen Bannon. . Mr. Bannon knew about the subpoena but did not respond. He did not show up or provide “a single document.” Bannon reportedly predicts “all hell” will “break loose” on January 6, and weighs in on 2020-2021 discussion on “efforts to overturn 2020 election results” It is said that he was doing so.
The House of Representatives found Bannon in contempt of Congress and referred the matter to federal prosecutors, who charged Bannon with contempt under federal law. After a five-day trial, a jury found Bannon guilty of contempt for refusing to testify and produce documents. He was sentenced to four months in prison and a fine. His sentence was put on hold as Bannon appealed to the D.C. Circuit.
How did Judge Garcia and the DC Circuit rule and why does it matter?
Judge Garcia wrote a unanimous opinion affirming Bannon's conviction for contempt of Congress. Obama candidate Cornelia Pillard and Trump candidate Justin Walker also participated fully.
Mr. Garcia rejected Mr. Bannon's arguments against the conviction, particularly his argument that he relied on his attorney's advice and did not refuse to comply out of “malice.” As Garcia explained, the D.C. Circuit has previously held that the legal requirement that a person convicted of contempt act “knowingly” does not mean that the defendant intentionally and intentionally responds to a subpoena. The court held that it meant “only a refusal to do so.” Based on precedent, he continued, “a precise 'advice of attorney' defense is no defense at all.” Despite Bannon's claims, Garcia concluded that there was “no basis for departing from binding precedent.”
Bannon also claimed that his non-compliance was “justified” because he “reliant on instructions from then-former President Trump” and based on his interpretation of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion. A defense was raised. However, after carefully reviewing the record, Garcia concluded:[n]Both the communication from former President Trump's lawyers and the OLC's opinion would allow Bannon to refuse to produce any documents or appear for a deposition. ” Garcia also rejected other procedural arguments raised by Bannon.
Judge Garcia's opinion concerns the power of Congress and courts to hold people in contempt for refusing to respond to Congressional investigations and subpoenas, even though Bannon's lawyers have already indicated they intend to appeal. It is important because it reinforces important precedent. Additionally, this decision serves as a reminder of the importance of promptly confirming fair-minded judges like Judge Garcia to the federal courts.
