U.S. Justice Department fails to reindict Letitia James for a second time

New York Attorney General Letitia James attends a press conference in New York City on Oct. 21. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images via CNN Newsource)

A grand jury, for a second time, declined to bring a new indictment against Letitia James, the New York attorney general who defeated U.S. President Donald Trump and his company in court, according to multiple sources.

The U.S. Justice Department presented its case against James to grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, Thursday — a week after a different grand jury in Norfolk declined to bring charges.

The quick move by the Justice Department to present a case against James again to a grand jury again shows the intensity of its efforts to prosecute the New York attorney general, a frequent Trump political target who was one of several enemies he has said on social media should face legal jeopardy.

In a statement Thursday, James’ lawyer Abbe Lowell said any further attempts to revive the charges against his client “would be a mockery of our system of justice.”

“This unprecedented rejection makes even clearer that this case should never have seen the light of day,” Lowell said. “This case already has been a stain on this Department’s reputation and raises troubling questions about its integrity.”

Late last month, a federal judge said that Lindsey Halligan, Trump’s handpicked prosecutor, was unlawfully appointed as an interim U.S. attorney and therefore the criminal cases against James and another Trump political opponent — former FBI Director James Comey — must be dismissed. Halligan, a former White House adviser, was given the job after the Justice Department pushed out the previous interim U.S. attorney amid increasing pressure to bring cases against Comey and James.

In the original indictment, prosecutors said James had claimed on mortgage paperwork that a home she purchased in Norfolk would be her second residence, allowing her to get a favorable mortgage rate. Prosecutors said that James didn’t use the house and rented it instead.

James had pleaded not guilty to one count of making false statements to a financial institution and one count of bank fraud before the case was dismissed.

“All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment” including the indictments against Comey and James “were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside,” Judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled.

But Currie tossed out the cases “without prejudice,” leaving open the possibility that both individuals could be re-charged for the same alleged conduct.

And, with James, the Justice Department swiftly tried again — first in Norfolk on Dec. 4, and then in Alexandria, Virginia on Thursday.

While the ruling last month unwound the original case against James, it didn’t preclude the justice department from trying again. Repeated efforts to revive the case, however, could raise policy and constitutional concerns, retired federal judge Nancy Gertner told CNN.

“The prosecutor, as a matter of policy, shouldn’t be presenting charges before a grand jury unless they have a reasonable belief that they could win before a jury,” Gertner said. “Losing before the grand jury once is one of the best indications that there’s no there there – that they don’t have a case.”

Prosecutors, however, face a long road ahead. Lawyers for James previously argued she was selectively and vindictively prosecuted.

Before their cases were dismissed, both James and Comey pointed to a myriad of comments from Trump calling for them to be prosecuted, and in the case of James, have accused the government of “transforming the Department of Justice into the President’s personal agents of revenge.”

Their attorneys pointed to one of Trump’s Truth Social posts, which was directed at U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, in September.

“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,’” Trump wrote, referring to Comey, James, and Sen. Adam Schiff of California.

The U.S. Justice Department has argued that the president’s social media posts weren’t directing Bondi to act, but simply saying Trump believed those people should be prosecuted because they’re guilty.

In the cases against Comey and James, defence attorneys argued the 120-day period an interim U.S. attorney is allowed to serve prior to confirmation from the Senate or approval from the district’s judges had already expired when Halligan took the position.

This, they said, meant that Halligan’s appointment was unlawful.

Currie agreed. She wrote that agreeing with the government’s position would give Trump and other officials authority “to evade the Senate confirmation process indefinitely by stacking successive 120-day appointments.”

“The 120-day clock began running with Mr. Siebert’s appointment on Jan. 21, 2025,” she wrote, referring to Erik Siebert, who had been serving as the interim U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia until he was pushed out in September. (After the 120-day period ended earlier this year, judges in the district voted to keep him in the job.)

“When that clock expired on May 21, 2025, so too did the Attorney General’s appointment authority,” Currie wrote, adding that Bondi’s “attempt to install” Halligan “was invalid and that Ms. Halligan has been unlawfully serving in that role since Sept. 22, 2025.”

This story has been updated with additional details and comment.

By Hannah Rabinowitz, Casey Gannon, Katelyn Polantz, Kaitlan Collins, CNN