The Justice Department is struggling to re-indict New York Attorney General Letitia James. For the second time in seven days, a grand jury declined to endorse federal prosecutors’ case against her. President Donald Trump is really interested in this case.
The latest refusal from a panel in Alexandria deepened the impression that jurors remain unconvinced by the government’s attempt to revive allegations previously thrown out by a federal judge. It also signaled continued skepticism about an effort widely viewed as part of the administration’s push to target some of Trump’s most prominent critics.
Grand jury rebuffs are infrequent in federal cases. Here, the outcome carried additional weight because prosecutors had already failed to win an indictment in Norfolk a week earlier, even after presenting their evidence to a second panel. Both groups of citizens reviewed the government’s claims and declined to validate the narrative prosecutors insisted was straightforward.
READ ALSO: Kilmar Abrego Garcia secures release as court rejects his continued detention
The Justice Department has been trying to salvage charges originally dismissed in November, when a judge concluded that Lindsey Halligan, the lawyer who led the grand jury presentation, was unlawfully installed as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan, a former Trump attorney with no experience as a prosecutor, had been placed in the role after sustained pressure from the administration to bring cases against James and former FBI Director James Comey.
Two individuals familiar with Thursday’s outcome confirmed the latest rejection. They were not authorized to comment publicly and discussed the matter on the condition of anonymity, AP reported. Prosecutors had urged jurors in Alexandria to return an indictment identical to the one Norfolk jurors had already declined. They did not succeed.
It remained uncertain Thursday whether the government would pursue a third attempt. One of the people with knowledge of the matter said prosecutors were reviewing their options and continued to support the charges.
James, who has consistently denied any wrongdoing, received a blistering assessment of the government’s case from her attorney. The defense team said the “unprecedented rejection makes even clearer that this case should never have seen the light of day.” In a statement, attorney Abbe Lowell added that “this case already has been a stain on this Department’s reputation and raises troubling questions about its integrity” and warned that “any further attempt to revive these discredited charges would be a mockery of our system of justice.”
The original case accused James of bank fraud and false statements related to a 2020 home purchase. During the closing stages of the sale, she signed a standard “second home rider” agreeing to use the property primarily for her “personal use and enjoyment for at least one year” unless the lender approved otherwise. Federal prosecutors claimed she instead rented the home to a family, giving her access to loan terms that would not have been available for an investment property.
READ ALSO: Trump’s new ‘gold card’ offers wealthy applicants a shortcut to U.S. status
The dismissed indictments against Comey stemmed from separate allegations that he lied to Congress in 2020. Those charges were also thrown out because of the ruling that invalidated Halligan’s appointment. The judge dismissed both sets of charges without prejudice, leaving the door open for prosecutors to try again.
The administration has continued its push to secure Halligan as the formal U.S. attorney, and she has submitted the required paperwork to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Her nomination, however, faces procedural challenges that could slow or block her confirmation.
The backdrop to the case includes James’ long-running battles with Trump, including a high-profile civil lawsuit that accused him of inflating his assets to secure favorable financial terms. That case resulted in a large penalty that was later overturned by a higher court, and both sides are now appealing aspects of the ruling.
Meanwhile, prosecutors handling the Comey matter face a separate obstacle. A federal judge recently prohibited the government from accessing computer files belonging to Daniel Richman, a close Comey associate and Columbia University law professor. Prosecutors want the files for a potential new case. They moved this week to quash the court’s order, arguing that Richman’s request for the files and the judge’s decision to return them represented a “strategic tool to obstruct the investigation and potential prosecution.” They said the order had improperly limited their ability to proceed.
READ ALSO: How Trump’s ICE crackdown is disrupting America’s preschools
