6. April 2026

Trump DOJ Gets Green Light From Supreme Court to Dismiss Bannon Case

WASHINGTON-- The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the federal government’s criminal case against Steve Bannon, a former White House adviser who was convicted in 2022 of defying a congressional subpoena tied to the investigation into the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

The high court’s move follows a February decision by federal prosecutors—now under Trump’s Justice Department—to seek dismissal of the indictment originally brought during President Joe Biden’s administration. In a joint request, both the Justice Department and Bannon had asked the Supreme Court to vacate a lower court ruling that upheld his conviction and return the case to the trial court, where the charges could formally be dismissed. The justices’ order effectively grants that path, wiping away the appellate decision that had kept Bannon’s conviction intact.

Bannon’s legal team framed the development as long overdue. “This case should never have been brought, and we’re delighted that the decision affirming Mr. Bannon’s unlawful conviction has finally been vacated,” his attorney, Michael Buschbacher, said in a statement to CNN.

The case stems from Bannon’s refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by the House select committee investigating the Capitol riot. Lawmakers had demanded both testimony and documents, but Bannon declined to cooperate, leading to charges of criminal contempt of Congress. A federal jury convicted him, and he ultimately served a four-month prison sentence in 2024.

While the Supreme Court’s action is unlikely to carry immediate practical consequences—given that Bannon has already completed his sentence—it represents a significant legal and political victory for the longtime Trump ally, who has continued to challenge the legitimacy of his prosecution.

At the heart of Bannon’s appeal was the legal definition of “willfully,” a key element in contempt of Congress cases. His attorneys argued that he did not intentionally defy the subpoena but instead relied on guidance from his legal counsel, who advised him not to respond while questions surrounding former President Trump’s claims of executive privilege were unresolved.

Bannon “argued he should be allowed to explain his reliance on counsel’s advice and on executive privilege, but he was precluded … from presenting such a defense at trial,” his lawyers told the Supreme Court, calling that limitation “a crucial flaw” in the proceedings.

Prosecutors under the Biden administration had rejected that argument, maintaining that Bannon’s actions amounted to “total noncompliance” and did not meet the threshold for a good-faith legal defense. That position was reinforced by a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., which ruled in 2024 that existing precedent foreclosed Bannon’s claims. The court said bluntly that acting on advice of counsel was “no defense at all” in the context of a congressional subpoena.

The Supreme Court had previously declined to intervene on Bannon’s behalf. In an earlier emergency appeal, he sought to delay serving his sentence while his case played out, but the justices rejected that request without noted dissent, forcing him to report to prison.

The Justice Department’s reversal marks a notable shift in legal posture under Trump, aligning with a broader pattern of clemency and leniency toward figures connected to the January 6 investigation. In its filing with the court, the department said it had reassessed the case and determined that continuing prosecution was no longer warranted.

“The government has determined in its prosecutorial discretion that dismissal of this criminal case is in the interests of justice,” the department told the court.

Bannon’s allies have long argued that the case was politically motivated. His trial attorney, David Schoen, said the prosecution “never should have been brought” and accused the Biden-era Justice Department of using the case to score political points. He also argued that the proceedings raised serious constitutional concerns, particularly regarding the separation of powers once executive privilege had been invoked.

The Supreme Court’s action comes in the wake of a similar legal battle involving another former Trump adviser, Peter Navarro, who was also convicted of contempt of Congress. Navarro, however, failed to secure relief from the high court and was required to serve his sentence, underscoring the shifting legal landscape now facing cases tied to the January 6 inquiry.