Attorney General Pam Bondi heads into the Thanksgiving weekend under intense pressure after a string of courtroom setbacks, internal disputes and high-profile inquiries combined to create her most difficult week in office.
The turmoil spans adverse federal rulings, turbulence inside the Justice Department and renewed scrutiny of politically charged prosecutions—all unfolding while the department continues to tout major enforcement actions.
Why This Week Matters
A cluster of legal blows and public controversies has sharpened questions about how the Justice Department, under Bondi’s leadership, is managing sensitive cases and safeguarding its own institutional credibility.
Central to those concerns is a judge’s decision to throw out two headline-making indictments because the prosecutor who obtained them was unlawfully appointed. The dismissals turned not on the strength of the evidence, but on procedural flaws in how the prosecutor came to hold her position.
That ruling landed alongside broader complaints about prosecutorial conduct—from instances where politically aligned attorneys pursued matters that career staff had declined, to filings later rebuked by courts as inaccurate.
Ethics complaints have prompted calls for disbarment, and a separate criminal-contempt inquiry naming senior officials has raised fears that court orders were not followed. Taken together, these developments have intensified long-running worries about politicization and weakened safeguards inside the department.
Even as the DOJ announces major new criminal cases, this week underscored a widening gap between the administration’s push for aggressive prosecutions and judges’ increasing willingness to push back.
Judge Finds Halligan’s Appointment Invalid, Tosses High-Profile Indictments
The week’s most consequential setback came Monday, November 24, when U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed the Justice Department’s indictments of former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Currie ruled that acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan—whom Bondi installed in September—”was unlawfully appointed” because the Attorney General’s authority to name an interim U.S. Attorney had expired after the statutory 120-day window.
Once that deadline passed, only the district court could lawfully make such an appointment. As a result, Currie held that “all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment…are hereby set aside,” including both indictments.
The dismissals were issued without prejudice, leaving a path for potential re-indictment. Comey, in a video statement, said the ruling ended a prosecution “based on malevolence and incompetence.” James said she remained “fearless in the face of these baseless charges.”
Speaking in Memphis the same day, Bondi vowed an “immediate appeal” and pledged to pursue “all available legal action.”
Currie’s decision did not resolve whether the prosecutions amounted to “vindictive” targeting of Trump critics—a question several judges had been weighing.
Halligan’s role has drawn particular scrutiny. She was the sole prosecutor to present either case to the grand jury, an unusual move in major federal prosecutions, where grand jury work is typically led by teams of career Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
While grand jury secrecy shields internal deliberations from public view, the indictments—signed only by Halligan—and related filings strongly suggest that no career prosecutors participated. That reality has deepened concerns about both the authority and the internal checks behind the charging decisions.
Disbarment Demands Following Grand Jury Concerns
Bondi also came under fresh fire over the Comey case after former Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb said on television that both Bondi and Halligan “should be disbarred.”
Cobb accused Bondi of filing court affirmations he claimed were untruthful, though he did not specify which document or identify any alleged misstatement. No court ruling or public filing has corroborated his allegations, leaving them in the realm of commentary rather than established misconduct.
Cobb’s remarks followed disclosures that the grand jury that indicted Comey had not reviewed the final version of the charges—an issue now before the court.
Under federal rules, grand jurors must vote on the exact charges that prosecutors plan to file, and prosecutors are not permitted to make material changes to an indictment after that vote. If the version submitted to the court diverges from what the grand jury actually saw, the integrity of the indictment is called into question.
A federal magistrate judge separately noted “investigative missteps,” citing potential Fourth Amendment concerns—such as whether investigators properly obtained and executed search warrants—and irregularities in the grand jury process, including questions about whether evidence was presented as required and whether jurors saw the full, final materials they were supposed to review.
Such flaws can have serious consequences: unconstitutional searches can result in key evidence being excluded, and procedural defects in grand jury proceedings can undermine the validity of the indictment itself.
Judge Michael Nachmanoff—another federal magistrate judge, distinct from the judge who set aside the indictments—ended a hearing by saying he would not yet rule because “the issues are too wavy and too complex.” He was referring to interlocking disputes over Halligan’s appointment, the grand jury’s handling of the charges and whether certain investigative steps met constitutional standards.
Those unresolved questions have made it difficult for the court to deliver a swift, definitive ruling.
Senior Officials Entangled in Criminal Contempt Inquiry
Bondi’s challenges deepened as the Justice Department disclosed that several high-ranking officials—including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche—were named in a criminal contempt inquiry overseen by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg.
The inquiry centers on whether officials failed to comply with a temporary restraining order connected to deportations to El Salvador in March.
Public information about the episode remains sparse. No major outlet has laid out a comprehensive account of what occurred in March, what the TRO specifically prohibited or how the alleged noncompliance unfolded.
With no detailed public filings describing the underlying events, the scope and stakes of the inquiry remain largely opaque.
Government submissions have defended the administration’s conduct, arguing that the written order “said nothing about returning” detainees who had already been removed and that any reading requiring their return was unsupported by the order’s “plain language” and legal context.
For Bondi, the inquiry is particularly damaging because it pulls her department further into a high-stakes contempt dispute at a time when its judgment, legal interpretations and adherence to court directives are already under close scrutiny.
Judicial Misconduct Complaint Against Judge Reyes Dismissed
Another matter involving Bondi’s department also reached a conclusion this week—and again not in DOJ’s favor.
A judicial-misconduct complaint filed earlier this 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 alleged “hostile and egregious” conduct during a February hearing on President Trump’s order barring transgender people from serving in the military, including pointed questioning of a government lawyer that DOJ said was designed to humiliate him.
In an order dated September 29 but made public this week, Srinivasan rejected the complaint on procedural grounds. He explained that if the Justice Department believed Reyes was biased or behaved improperly, it should have pursued her recusal in the case, rather than lodging a misconduct claim.
The judicial-misconduct process, he wrote, is not a substitute for the standard legal tools available to parties in litigation.
Srinivasan did not decide whether Reyes’ alleged behavior actually occurred or would have breached ethics rules; he found only that the complaint was brought through the wrong channel. DOJ did not seek further review, and both the department and Reyes declined to comment.
The dismissal closes one avenue Bondi’s team had used to challenge Reyes’ handling of the underlying case, which remains pending on appeal.
Bondi’s Reversal on Epstein Files Draws Fresh Scrutiny
Bondi’s shifting position on the Epstein files also resurfaced this week. Not long ago, she argued publicly that reopening the Epstein records would serve little purpose, noting that key figures were deceased and that earlier investigations had generated limited actionable evidence.
Now, under pressure from former President Trump—who has repeatedly demanded prosecutions linked to the files—Bondi’s department has directed prosecutors to reassess whether any charges can be brought.
The abrupt change has drawn criticism from legal analysts and former prosecutors, who say it raises concerns about political influence over investigative priorities.
Reviewing old case materials is not inherently improper. But the reversal, paired with Bondi’s earlier public skepticism about the files’ usefulness, has fueled fears that the department’s agenda is being shaped as much by presidential demands as by legal merit.
DOJ has not explained the shift in approach, and it remains uncertain whether the renewed review will lead to indictments or other concrete steps.
High-Profile Drug Case Fails to Offset Damage
Amid the turmoil, the Justice Department announced a significant enforcement development: newly unsealed charges and an increased $15 million reward for former Olympic snowboarder Ryan Wedding, accused of running a cross-border drug trafficking operation.
Bondi described Wedding as controlling “one of the most prolific and violent drug trafficking organizations in this world” and vowed continued pursuit, while stressing that all suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
However, with Wedding and three others still at large, the announcement did little to counterbalance the week’s legal and political setbacks as Bondi moves into the holiday weekend.
What Comes Next for Bondi and the DOJ
Bondi now faces an appeal in the Halligan appointment case, potential professional-conduct repercussions tied to the Comey prosecution and a politically sensitive contempt inquiry involving senior administration officials.
Each of these threads is likely to continue unfolding in the weeks ahead—ensuring that the pressure on the nation’s top law-enforcement official remains high well beyond Thanksgiving.
