2026-04-06T13:33:45.429Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：约翰·弗里茨
更新于31分钟前
更新于美国东部时间2026年4月6日上午11:31
发布于美国东部时间2026年4月6日上午9:33
美国最高法院周一扫清了道路，允许唐纳德·特朗普总统的政府撤销对前白宫顾问史蒂夫·班农的刑事指控。班农于2022年因拒绝服从针对2021年1月6日国会大厦骚乱调查的议员传票而定罪。
最高法院的这一决定是在联邦检察官于2月提出撤销在乔·拜登总统任内提起的起诉之后作出的。美国司法部和班农都曾请求高等法院撤销维持定罪的上诉法院裁决，并将案件发回初审法院，以便撤销对他的最初指控。
“本不应该提起这起案件，我们很高兴维持班农先生非法定罪的裁决终于被撤销，”班农的律师迈克尔·布施巴赫尔告诉CNN。
班农因拒绝配合美国众议院2021年1月6日调查的传票，要求其接受采访并提供文件，被联邦陪审团定罪。他已于2024年服完四个月的监禁刑期。
鉴于班农已经服刑完毕，这一决定在实际层面不会产生太大影响，但这位特朗普前助手仍在继续对其定罪提出质疑。
作为特朗普的坚定盟友，班农在向最高法院提起的上诉中辩称，他并非故意无视众议院委员会的传票，而是在听从律师的建议，在议员们解决特朗普关于行政特权的主张之前，不要回应传票。
他的上诉焦点在于下级法院如何定义“故意”。
班农的律师在向最高法院提交的文件中表示，班农“辩称他本应被允许解释其依赖律师建议和行政特权的情况，但他在庭审中被‘排除……无法提出此类辩护’”。他们称，这是他庭审中的“关键缺陷”。
拜登任内的司法部曾表示，班农“完全不配合”传票。
但此次与特朗普广泛赦免2021年1月6日骚乱参与者的做法一致，司法部告知最高法院，其不再继续追查这起案件。
“政府已根据其检察自由裁量权认定，驳回这起刑事案件符合司法利益，”美国司法部向最高法院表示。
在2024年的一项裁决中，华盛顿特区的联邦上诉法院表示，其关于国会传票的先例驳回了班农的论点。法院称，班农听从律师建议的事实“根本不是辩护理由”。
几周后，最高法院驳回了班农在紧急上诉中提出的类似论点，当时他试图避免入狱。法院简短的命令驳回了这一请求，意味着班农必须入狱服刑。当时没有异议记录。
“对史蒂夫·班农的刑事藐视国会指控本就不该提起。这是拜登司法部 purely 出于政治目的提起的，”班农的庭审律师戴维·肖恩在一份声明中告诉CNN。“总统援引行政特权后，此次起诉破坏了至关重要的分权宪法原则。”
该命令是在另一位前特朗普顾问彼得·纳瓦罗同样未能从保守派占多数的最高法院获得宽大处理的数月后发布的。
本文已更新以补充更多细节。
Supreme Court clears path for Trump’s DOJ to dismiss criminal case against Steve Bannon
2026-04-06T13:33:45.429Z / CNN
By John Fritze
Updated 31 min ago
Updated Apr 6, 2026, 11:31 AM ET
PUBLISHED Apr 6, 2026, 9:33 AM ET
Steve Bannon speaks during CPAC in Grapevine, Texas, on March 27.
Brandon Bell/Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for President Donald Trump’s administration to drop the government’s criminal case against Steve Bannon, a former White House adviser convicted in 2022 of defying a subpoena from lawmakers investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
The Supreme Court’s decision follows a move by federal prosecutors in February to drop the indictment brought during President Joe Biden’s administration. Both the Justice Department and Bannon had asked the high court to toss out an appeals court ruling upholding the conviction and send the case back to a trial court so that the original charges against him could be dismissed.
“This case should never have been brought, and we’re delighted that the decision affirming Mr. Bannon’s unlawful conviction has finally been vacated,” Bannon’s attorney, Michael Buschbacher, told CNN.
Bannon was convicted by a federal jury for refusing to comply with a subpoena for an interview and documents in the US House’s January 6, 2021, investigation. He already completed a four-month prison sentence for that in 2024.
The decision won’t have much of a practical consequence given that Bannon has already served his time, but Trump’s former aide has nevertheless continued to challenge his conviction.
Still a staunch Trump ally, Bannon argued in his appeal to the Supreme Court that he did not willfully ignore the House committee subpoena but was rather relying on advice from his attorneys to not respond to the subpoena until lawmakers worked out Trump’s claims of executive privilege.
His appeal turned on how lower courts define “willfully.”
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 attorneys told the Supreme Court. “That was a crucial flaw” in his trial, they said.
The Justice Department under Biden said that Bannon responded to the subpoena “with total noncompliance.”
But in an about face that tracks with Trump’s widespread pardoning of people involved with the January 6, 2021 riot, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court that it was no longer pursuing the case.
“The government has determined in its prosecutorial discretion that dismissal of this criminal case is in the interests of justice,” the Department of Justice told the Supreme Court.
In a 2024 decision, a federal appeals court in Washington, DC, said that its own precedents on congressional subpoenas foreclosed Bannon’s arguments. The fact that Bannon was operating on advice from his lawyers, the court said, was “no defense at all.”
Weeks later, the Supreme Court rejected similar arguments Bannon made in an emergency appeal in which he sought to avoid prison. The court’s brief order brushing aside the request meant that Bannon had to report for his sentence. There were no noted dissents at the time.
“The criminal contempt of Congress case against Steve Bannon never should have been brought. It was brought by the Biden Justice Department solely for political purposes,” Bannon’s trial attorney David Schoen told CNN in a statement. “The prosecution undermined the constitutionally important principle of separation of powers once Executive Privileged was invoked by the President.”
That order came months after another former Trump adviser, Peter Navarro, similarly failed to receive a break from the conservative high court.
This story has been updated with additional details.