A grand jury on Thursday (December 11) declined for the second time in a week to re-indict New York Attorney General Letitia James, marking another major setback for the Justice Department’s push to prosecute President Donald Trump’s most prominent political adversaries.
The repeated refusals represent a striking rebuke of prosecutors’ attempts to revive a criminal case Trump had publicly urged them to pursue.
Original charges thrown out
The initial indictments against James and former FBI Director James Comey were dismissed in November after a judge ruled that Lindsey Halligan — the former Trump lawyer installed as US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia — was unlawfully appointed. The cases were dismissed without prejudice, allowing prosecutors to seek a new indictment.
Back-to-back grand jury failures
After a Norfolk grand jury refused to indict James last week, prosecutors turned to another grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, which also declined. The outcome was confirmed by two people familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity, AP reported. Prosecutors are still assessing next steps.
Defense calls case “a stain” on DOJ
James’ attorney Abbe Lowell said the unprecedented second rejection shows the case “should never have seen the light of day,” calling the prosecution a blow to the department’s integrity and warning that any further attempts to revive it would “mock” the justice system.
Allegations against James Lalitia
James was originally charged with bank fraud and making false statements tied to a 2020 home purchase. Prosecutors alleged she rented out a property despite signing a “second home rider” requiring personal use for at least a year, allowing her to secure better loan terms meant for non-investment properties.
Political backdrop and DOJ pressure
The indictments came shortly after Halligan was installed at DOJ amid heavy White House pressure for charges against Trump critics. Her appointment replaced veteran prosecutor Erik Siebert, who resigned after Trump publicly demanded his removal.
Vindictive prosecution claim
James’ team argues the case is retaliatory, targeting her for years of investigations and civil suits against Trump — including a major fraud case alleging he inflated his wealth to obtain favorable loans. Though the penalty was later thrown out, both sides continue to appeal.
