On December 4, 2025, a federal grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia, declined to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James for a second time, marking a dramatic turn in a politically charged saga that has gripped the nation’s legal and political spheres. The grand jury’s decision comes less than two weeks after a federal judge dismissed the original criminal case against James, citing the unlawful appointment of the prosecutor who brought the charges. This rare outcome has sparked debate about the integrity of the justice system, presidential influence, and the enduring tensions between political adversaries.
Letitia James, a prominent Democrat and frequent target of President Donald Trump, had previously been indicted on one count of bank fraud and another of making false statements to a financial institution. The case revolved around her 2020 purchase of a three-bedroom home in Norfolk, which, according to federal prosecutors, was bought for her great-niece. Prosecutors alleged that James misrepresented the home as her secondary residence to secure more favorable loan terms—an accusation James has consistently denied. Unnamed sources told CBS News and other outlets that the relative never paid rent on the property, further fueling speculation and scrutiny.
The legal drama intensified when Lindsey Halligan, a former personal attorney to Trump with no prior prosecutorial experience, was appointed as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan’s appointment, occurring after Trump ousted the previous interim U.S. attorney, Erik Siebert, became a central point of contention. Judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled that Halligan’s appointment was unlawful, stating, “All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment… were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside.” This ruling voided not only the case against James but also a parallel case against former FBI Director James Comey, another of Trump’s political adversaries.
The judge’s decision was rooted in the 120-day limit for interim U.S. attorneys to serve without Senate confirmation or approval from district judges. When that period expired on May 21, 2025, Currie wrote, so too did the Attorney General’s authority to appoint a replacement. The attempt to install Halligan after this period was deemed invalid, making her the only signatory on the indictments for both James and Comey—an unusual and ultimately fatal flaw for the prosecution’s efforts.
In the wake of the judge’s ruling, the Justice Department quickly sought to revive the case, presenting it to a new grand jury in Norfolk. The urgency of the move underscored the administration’s determination. According to NBC News, the new case was presented by different prosecutors, but the grand jury again declined to indict. Such refusals are exceedingly rare: in 2016, federal grand juries declined to file charges in only six out of more than 150,000 federal investigations, as reported by CBS News.
James has been vocal in her defense, framing the repeated attempts to prosecute her as politically motivated. In a statement on Thursday, she declared, “As I have said from the start, the charges against me are baseless. It is time for this unchecked weaponization of our justice system to stop.” She added, “I am grateful to the members of the grand jury and humbled by the support I have received from across the country. Now, I will continue to do my job standing up for the rule of law and the people of New York.”
Her attorney, Abbe David Lowell, echoed these sentiments, calling the grand jury’s refusal “a decisive rejection of a case that should never have existed in the first place.” He warned, “If they continue, undeterred by a court ruling and a grand jury’s rejection of the charges, it will be a shocking assault on the rule of law and a devastating blow to the integrity of our justice system.”
The political backdrop to this legal battle is impossible to ignore. James, as New York’s top lawyer, previously brought a high-profile civil fraud case against Trump and the Trump Organization in 2022. That case resulted in Trump being found liable for falsifying records to secure better loan deals, leading to a staggering $500 million fine—a penalty later overturned on appeal for being excessive, though the finding of fraud was upheld. Trump’s animosity toward James and other perceived enemies has been well documented, with public and private calls for their prosecution. In one social media post directed at Attorney General Pam Bondi, Trump wrote, “Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, ‘same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.’” He continued, “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” while praising Halligan as “a really good lawyer.”
Defense attorneys for James and Comey have argued that the prosecutions were selective and vindictive, pointing to Trump’s repeated public demands for legal action against his critics. They accused the government of “transforming the Department of Justice into the President’s personal agents of revenge.” The Justice Department, for its part, has maintained that the president’s social media posts were expressions of opinion rather than direct orders to prosecute.
The grand jury’s refusal to indict James does not prevent the Justice Department from trying again—a point noted by sources across multiple news outlets, including The New York Times. However, the repeated setbacks and the rare nature of a grand jury declining to indict have cast doubt on the viability of further attempts. As one source familiar with the situation told CNN, “there should be no premature celebration,” alluding to the possibility of continued legal maneuvering.
This episode has also highlighted broader concerns about the politicization of the Justice Department and the mechanisms in place to prevent abuses of power. Judge Currie’s ruling emphasized the importance of Senate confirmation and judicial oversight in federal appointments, warning against the danger of “stacking successive 120-day appointments” to bypass established checks and balances.
For now, Letitia James remains steadfast in her role, buoyed by the grand jury’s decision and public support. The legal and political drama, however, is far from over. With the Justice Department retaining the option to pursue further charges, and with Trump’s allies continuing to press for accountability for his critics, the case serves as a vivid illustration of the intersection between law and politics in contemporary America. The coming months will reveal whether the Justice Department chooses to press forward or whether this chapter in the ongoing battle between Trump and his opponents has finally reached its end.
