When the Justice Department indicts the president's named political enemies — and federal courts dismiss the cases as legally defective — what do religious traditions and the Constitution say about prosecutorial power as a weapon?
Religious traditions warn with unusual unanimity about rulers who use legal accusation as a tool of revenge — because the form of justice serving injustice is one of the most corrosive forms of tyranny. The Constitution's structures (DOJ independence norms, the Appointments Clause, due process protections) exist to prevent prosecutorial power from becoming political power. When grand juries decline to indict, when courts dismiss cases as legally defective, and when the named targets are openly identified by the president as enemies — the structures are doing their job, but only barely. Whether the system can continue to absorb the strain is one of the open questions of the current moment.
Religious perspectives
Religious traditions speak with unusual force about the use of legal accusation as a tool of political revenge.
Judaism: The Torah forbids bearing false witness (Exodus 20:16) — and Jewish legal tradition extended this to forbid even technically true accusations made for ulterior motives. The book of Esther centers on Haman, an official who tried to use legal mechanisms to destroy his political enemies. The Hebrew prophets repeatedly condemned rulers who used the legal system to crush opposition rather than to administer justice.
Christianity: Jesus himself was the victim of a politically motivated prosecution — leaders who "found false witnesses" against him (Matthew 26:60), used legal procedure to achieve a predetermined outcome, and then handed him to imperial authority for execution. The Gospel narrative is, among other things, a sustained critique of the use of law as a weapon against those whom the powerful want destroyed.
Islam: The Quran commands: "O you who believe! Stand firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even if it be against yourselves" (4:135). Selective prosecution — pursuing political enemies while protecting allies — is a violation of the most basic Islamic principle of impartial justice (adl).
The shared principle: Every religious tradition recognizes that legal procedure can be weaponized — that the form of justice can serve injustice. The traditions converge on the warning that this is one of the most dangerous abuses of power because it cloaks tyranny in the legitimacy of law.
Constitutional & legal framework
Selective prosecution by the Department of Justice — pursuing the president's named political opponents while declining to pursue allies — strikes at the basic premise that the law applies equally to all.
The named targets: President Trump publicly demanded prosecution of, among others: former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, Senator Adam Schiff, and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
The cases brought:
- James Comey (September 25, 2025): Indicted on charges of false statements to Congress and obstruction of a congressional proceeding.
- Letitia James (referred April 2025): Mortgage-related allegations referred to DOJ. Two grand juries (December 4 and December 11, 2025) declined to indict.
- John Bolton (October 2025): Indicted on charges related to handling of classified materials.
The court rulings: On November 24, 2025, Senior District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed the Comey and James indictments, ruling that the prosecutor in the cases — Lindsey Halligan, a Trump appointee — had been "unconstitutionally appointed" and was exercising power she "did not lawfully possess." The cases were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they could potentially be refiled.
The DOJ response: On February 9, 2026, DOJ filed an appeal with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to revive the cases.
The Appointments Clause issue: Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution governs the appointment of "Officers of the United States." The court found that Halligan's appointment did not satisfy this clause. The technical legal question is significant — but the underlying pattern (a series of indictments of named political enemies, brought by a politically-installed prosecutor, dismissed for procedural defects) speaks to a broader concern about the architecture of prosecutorial decision-making.
The historical norm: The Department of Justice has, for generations, observed a strong norm of independence from White House direction in individual prosecution decisions. This norm is not constitutionally required but has been treated by both parties as essential to public confidence in the legal system. The current pattern — indictments of named opponents combined with public presidential demands for prosecution — represents a departure from that norm.
Selective prosecution doctrine: While "selective prosecution" claims rarely succeed in court (they require showing both discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent), the constitutional principle is clear: the equal protection component of the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause prohibits prosecution based on race, religion, political affiliation, or exercise of constitutional rights.
The retaliation question: The First Amendment prohibits government retaliation against people for protected speech. When a prosecution follows public presidential demands aimed at named political opponents who have criticized the president, the line between legitimate prosecution and unconstitutional retaliation can blur.
See: Article II, §2 (Appointments Clause) → | 5th Amendment →
Sources cited:BibleConstitution