Pam Bondi Under Pressure After Worst Week Yet

By Robert Alexander

Senior Crime & Court Reporter

ShareNewsweek is a Trust Project member

Attorney General Pam Bondi enters the Thanksgiving weekend facing mounting scrutiny after a series of legal and political setbacks converged into her most challenging week since taking office.

The developments span federal court rulings, internal Justice Department turbulence and renewed questions over politically sensitive prosecutions—all while the department continues to pursue high-profile criminal investigations.

Newsweek contacted the DOJ for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Friday.

Why It Matters

After a cascade of courtroom setbacks, internal disputes and public criticism, Bondi is facing new questions about the Justice Department’s handling of politically sensitive cases and its broader institutional stability.

A judge’s decision to void two high-profile indictments because the prosecutor was unlawfully appointed—nullifying the cases on procedural rather than evidentiary grounds—has become a focal point in concerns over the department’s governance. The ruling comes amid renewed scrutiny of alleged prosecutorial missteps, from politically aligned attorneys taking on cases career staff declined to filings later faulted by courts as inaccurate.

Related ethics complaints have sparked calls for disbarment, and a separate criminal-contempt inquiry naming senior officials has fueled fears that court orders were ignored. Together, these developments have intensified long-standing worries about politicization and weakening procedural safeguards within the department.

Even as the DOJ rolls out major enforcement actions, this week’s events show a widening gap between the administration’s push for aggressive prosecutions and the courts’ increasing willingness to push back.

...

Judge Rules Halligan Appointment Unlawful

The biggest blow came Monday, November 24, when U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed the Justice Department’s indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

In her ruling, Currie found that acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan—appointed by Bondi in September—"was unlawfully appointed" because the Attorney General no longer had authority to install an interim U.S. Attorney once the statutory 120-day appointment window had expired.

With that limit breached, only the district court could have made a lawful appointment. Currie concluded that "all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment…are hereby set aside," including both indictments.

The dismissals were issued leaving the door open for possible re-indictment. Comey said in a video statement that the decision ended a prosecution "based on malevolence and incompetence." Meanwhile, James said she remained "fearless in the face of these baseless charges."

Bondi, speaking in Memphis the same day, said the department would take an "immediate appeal" and pursue "all available legal action."

The ruling did not determine whether the prosecutions constituted "vindictive" targeting of Trump critics—a question several judges had been examining.

Halligan was the only prosecutor to present either case to the grand jury, an unusual arrangement given that grand jury presentations in major federal cases are typically handled by career Assistant U.S. Attorneys rather than a newly installed political appointee.

Normally, these matters involve a team of career prosecutors whose participation provides internal oversight and helps insulate charging decisions from political pressures.

While the secrecy of grand jury proceedings prevents direct public confirmation, the indictments themselves—signed solely by Halligan—and related court filings make clear that no career prosecutors were involved, a fact that further amplified questions about procedure and authority.

...

Calls For Disbarment Mount

Bondi also faced new criticism over the Comey case after former Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb, in televised commentary, argued that both Bondi and Halligan "should be disbarred."

Cobb accused Bondi of submitting court affirmations that he claimed were untruthful, though he did not identify any specific filing or explain what statement he believed to be false. No court ruling or publicly available filing has substantiated the allegation, leaving Cobb’s charge as an opinion rather than a documented account of misconduct.

Cobb was reacting to revelations that the grand jury that indicted Comey had not reviewed the final version of the charges—an issue now before the court.

The concern is substantial: federal rules require that a grand jury vote on the exact charges prosecutors intend to file, and prosecutors may not materially revise an indictment after that vote. If the version submitted to the court differs from the version the grand jury actually saw, the legitimacy of the indictment itself is put in doubt.

A federal magistrate judge separately cited "investigative missteps," pointing to potential Fourth Amendment problems—such as questions about whether investigators obtained or executed search warrants properly—and to irregularities in the grand jury process, including concerns about whether evidence was presented in the required manner and whether jurors had access to the full, final set of materials they were supposed to review.

These kinds of issues are significant because improper searches can lead to key evidence being suppressed, and procedural defects in grand jury presentations can undermine the validity of an indictment itself.

Judge Michael Nachmanoff—a separate federal magistrate judge, not the one who voided the indictments—ended a hearing by saying he would not rule yet because "the issues are too wavy and too complex," referring to the overlapping procedural disputes now before the court, including questions about the legality of Halligan’s appointment, possible defects in how the grand jury received and approved the charges, and concerns about whether certain investigative steps complied with constitutional requirements.

Together, these unresolved questions made it difficult for the court to reach a clear, immediate decision.

Justice Officials Named In Criminal Contempt Inquiry

The week brought further strain as the Justice Department identified several senior officials—including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and others—in a criminal contempt inquiry overseen by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg.

The inquiry involves whether officials failed to comply with a temporary restraining order related to March deportations to El Salvador.

Public details about the episode remain limited: no major outlet has published a clear account of what occurred in March, what the TRO specifically prohibited, or how the alleged noncompliance unfolded.

With no publicly available court filings describing the underlying events, the matter remains largely opaque, making the scope and stakes of the inquiry difficult to assess from the outside.

Government filings defended the administration’s actions, arguing that the written order "said nothing about returning" detainees already removed and that any interpretation requiring return was not supported by "plain language" or legal context.

This was bad news for Bondi because it pulled her department deeper into a high-stakes contempt inquiry that raised fresh doubts about DOJ’s judgment, legal interpretations and compliance with court orders at a moment when her leadership was already under intense scrutiny.

DOJ Complaint Against Judge Dismissed

Another matter involving Bondi’s department also came to a close this week, and not in DOJ’s favor.

A misconduct complaint filed earlier in the year by Chad Mizelle, then Bondi’s chief of staff, against U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes was formally dismissed by Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the D.C. Circuit.

The complaint accused Reyes of "hostile and egregious" conduct during a February hearing on President Trump’s order barring transgender people from serving in the military, including sharp questioning of a government lawyer that DOJ said was meant to embarrass him.

In an order dated September 29 but released this week, Srinivasan dismissed the complaint on procedural grounds, explaining that if the Justice Department believed Reyes was biased or acted inappropriately, it should have sought her recusal in the case rather than pursuing a judicial-misconduct claim.

The misconduct process, he wrote, is not a substitute for the ordinary legal tools available to litigants.

Srinivasan did not assess whether Reyes’ conduct actually occurred as described or whether it would have violated ethics rules; he simply found that the complaint was brought through the wrong channel. DOJ did not seek further review, and both the department and Judge Reyes declined to comment.

The dismissal effectively closes one route through which Bondi’s team had attempted to challenge Reyes’ handling of the underlying case, which remains pending on appeal.

Under Pressure, Bondi Reverses Course on Epstein Files

Bondi’s shifting stance on the Epstein files also returned to the spotlight this week. Only months ago, she publicly argued that reopening the Epstein records would be pointless, noting that key principals were deceased and that prior investigations had already produced limited actionable evidence.

But under pressure from former President Trump—who has repeatedly demanded prosecutions arising from the files—Bondi’s department has now directed prosecutors to examine whether any potential charges can be brought.

The abrupt reversal has drawn scrutiny from legal analysts and former prosecutors, who say the shift raises questions about political influence on investigative priorities.

While reviewing old case materials is not improper on its own, the timing and the previously stated view that further inquiry would yield little have fueled concerns that the department’s agenda is being driven as much by presidential demands as by legal merit.

DOJ has offered no explanation for the change in approach, and it remains unclear whether the renewed review will lead to any concrete action.

A Major DOJ Win Still Overshadowed

Even amid the turbulence, the Justice Department publicized a major development: the unsealing of new charges and a raised $15 million reward for fugitive former Olympic snowboarder Ryan Wedding, accused of leading a cross-border drug trafficking enterprise.

Bondi said Wedding "controls one of the most prolific and violent drug trafficking organizations in this world" and pledged continued pursuit. All suspects are innocent until proven guilty.

Still, with Wedding and three others at large, the department’s highest-profile success was not enough to blunt the impact of the week’s setbacks as she heads into the Thanksgiving holiday.

What Happens Next

The attorney general now faces an appeal process in the Halligan matter, potential professional-conduct fallout from the Comey case and a politically sensitive contempt inquiry involving senior administration officials.

Each issue is likely to continue unfolding in the coming weeks—ensuring continued pressure on the nation’s top law-enforcement official.

Request Reprint & LicensingSubmit CorrectionView Editorial & AI Guidelines