A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump has thrown a temporary roadblock in front of the Justice Department’s effort to erase Steve Bannon’s contempt of Congress case.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols declined to dismiss the indictment underlying Bannon’s 2022 conviction, ruling that federal prosecutors failed to provide an adequate explanation for abandoning the case.
The Justice Department’s request “does not explain its motivations for seeking dismissal,” Nichols wrote, according to Bloomberg Law.
Nichols said the government must provide “a statement of reasons and underlying factual basis” supporting its request—not merely a broad assertion that dropping the case would serve the interests of justice.
The ruling leaves Bannon’s conviction intact for now, but it does not necessarily represent a lasting defeat. Nichols denied the motion “without prejudice,” allowing prosecutors to return with a more detailed justification.
DOJ’s One-Sentence Explanation Falls Short
Bannon, who served as Trump’s White House chief strategist during the president’s first term, was convicted on two counts of contempt of Congress after refusing to comply with a subpoena from the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
The committee sought documents and testimony related to Bannon’s communications with Trump and efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Bannon maintained that he declined to comply after Trump asserted executive privilege. He was nevertheless convicted by a Washington jury in 2022 and served a four-month federal prison sentence in 2024.
After Trump returned to office, the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington moved in February to vacate the judgment and dismiss the indictment with prejudice, which would prevent prosecutors from bringing the same case again.
“The government has determined in its prosecutorial discretion that dismissal of this criminal case is in the interests of justice,” prosecutors wrote.
That explanation, signed by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, did not satisfy Nichols. According to ABC News, the judge found that prosecutors had failed to comply with local court rules requiring the government to explain its reasons for seeking dismissal.
Pirro and Nichols were both appointed by Trump.
Supreme Court Cleared The Path—But Did Not End The Case
The procedural showdown comes months after the Supreme Court handed Bannon a significant victory in his appeal.
In April, the justices vacated the federal appeals court judgment that had upheld Bannon’s conviction and returned the case for further consideration in light of the government’s pending motion to dismiss the indictment.
The high court did not directly dismiss Bannon’s charges. Its brief April 6 order instead cleared the procedural path for Nichols to consider the Justice Department’s request.
In its Supreme Court filing, the Justice Department argued that Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits prosecutors—with a judge’s approval—to dismiss an indictment even after a jury has returned a guilty verdict and the court has entered judgment.
Bannon had asked the Supreme Court to examine whether someone “willfully” defies a congressional subpoena when acting on a good-faith assertion of executive privilege. He also challenged the composition of the House Jan. 6 committee.
The Justice Department’s reversal made it unlikely that the justices would reach those broader constitutional questions. Instead, the court vacated the appellate judgment and sent the case back down.
Nichols’ latest ruling means the conviction remains on Bannon’s record while prosecutors decide whether to submit a renewed motion with the detailed factual and legal explanation the judge demanded.
Because Bannon has already completed his prison sentence, the immediate consequences are largely symbolic. Clearing the conviction, however, would still deliver an important legal victory to one of Trump’s most prominent and outspoken allies.
