A federal judge has rejected efforts by the Trump administration and Steve Bannon to erase the former Trump White House chief strategist's contempt of Congress conviction, ruling that Justice Department prosecutors failed to adequately explain why the case should be dismissed.
In a four-page order, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols, who was appointed to the federal bench during Trump's first term, found the DOJ's legal arguments "wholly lacking." The judge, sitting in the District of Columbia, said prosecutors provided only a conclusory statement that failed to meet the procedural requirements for dismissing a criminal indictment.
Background
Bannon was convicted in 2022 on two counts of contempt of Congress after refusing to comply with a subpoena from the House January 6 committee. Each count carries a potential sentence of up to one year in prison. He was sentenced to four months behind bars, though that sentence has been on hold as legal proceedings continued.
The case has traveled through multiple courts. In May 2025, a panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected Bannon's bid to overturn his conviction. Bannon then appealed to the Supreme Court, which vacated the appellate court's ruling and remanded the case back to the D.C. Circuit "for further consideration in light of the pending motion to dismiss."
The Charges
The DOJ filed a two-page motion in February seeking to dismiss the indictment against Bannon. The government's motion stated only that "the government has determined in its prosecutorial discretion that dismissal of this criminal case is in the interests of justice."
Judge Nichols found this explanation insufficient under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), which requires prosecutors to provide "a statement of reasons" when seeking to dismiss an indictment. The judge noted that D.C. Circuit precedent demands more than "a mere conclusory statement."
"The Government's motion does not explain its motivations for seeking dismissal of the indictment and thus fails to meet Rule 48(a)'s procedural requirement," Nichols wrote.
Key Takeaways
- Bannon was convicted in 2022 on two counts of contempt of Congress for refusing to testify before the House January 6 committee
- DOJ's two-page motion to dismiss contained only one explanatory sentence from U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro
- Judge Nichols found this "conclusory statement" insufficient under federal procedural rules
- The judge denied the motion without prejudice, giving prosecutors an opportunity to refile with more detailed reasoning
- The ruling comes amid complex litigation involving the Supreme Court, D.C. Circuit, and trial court
What's Next
Judge Nichols gave the DOJ leave to file a renewed motion that complies with Rule 48(a)'s requirements. However, the judge also directed prosecutors to address potentially problematic precedent from the D.C. Circuit.
In a footnote, Nichols noted that in 2025, the D.C. Circuit held "the government may dismiss a prosecution only while the prosecution is pending." The Supreme Court declined to reconsider that ruling. Since Bannon's conviction at the district court level has not been vacated despite the high court's actions, Nichols suggested this precedent could bar dismissal of the indictment.
"The Government should therefore explain whether [that precedent] bars this Court from dismissing the indictment under Rule 48(a)," Nichols concluded.