DOJ’s failure to indict Trump enemy Letitia James won’t stop it from trying again


Summary

'No True Bill'

A federal grand jury in Virginia returned a “no true bill” on Thursday, meaning it declined to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James.

DOJ tries twice

This was the Justice Department’s second attempt to indict James, who brought a civil fraud case against President Donald Trump in New York.

DOJ will try again

The department said it will try again to charge James. It can do so as long as it follows certain legal requirements.


Full story

Although a federal grand jury declined Thursday to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James on mortgage fraud charges, the case isn’t necessarily over. At the urging of President Donald Trump, the Justice Department says it will again try to bring charges against James, one of the president’s most prominent perceived enemies.

The grand jury’s rejection of charges against James came just two weeks after a judge dismissed an earlier indictment charging her with citing homes in both New York and Virginia as her primary residence, potentially giving her favorable terms on mortgages for both properties.

QR code for SAN app download

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

There is no concrete number of how many times the federal government can indict — or try to indict — someone on the same charges. Prosecutors may take the same case to a grand jury more than once — and more than twice — as long as they meet certain legal conditions.

James has faced Trump’s ire since 2022, when she  brought a sweeping civil fraud lawsuit against him and his primary business in New York. The lawsuit accused Trump of inflating his assets by billions of dollars to qualify for loans. 

In 2024, a state court judge in New York found Trump and the Trump Organization liable in 2024 and imposed a large financial penalty that eventually exceeded $500 million with interest. 

An appellate court threw out the financial penalty in August, ruling it was excessive. However, the court upheld the finding that Trump inflated his wealth for decades, and he and his two oldest sons remain barred from corporate leadership positions in New York state.  Trump has since referred to James as a “wacky crook,” and after returning to the White House, he urged his Justice Department to dig up dirt on her. 

In September, Trump urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute both James and former FBI director James Comey, another of his enemies. But when U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert of the Eastern District of Virginia failed to seek indictments, Trump forced him out. He then appointed Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide and his former personal attorney, to replace Siebert. Halligan had no experience as a prosecutor.

The following month, Halligan persuaded a grand jury to indict James on charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution regarding a 2020 Virginia home loan. The same grand jury also indicted Comey.

But U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed both cases last month, saying Trump had unconstitutionally appointed Halligan as interim U.S. attorney, making the indictments invalid.

The James case seemed to be over. It wasn’t.

Second indictment attempt 

This week, the Justice Department brought the same allegations about James to a new grand jury.

This time, the jury declined to return an indictment. The Justice Department said it will try again. But how many times prosecutors will attempt to indict James is yet to be seen.

If a grand jury issues a “no bill,” as it did in James’ most recent legal encounter, this does not mean she was acquitted of the charges. An acquittal would have protected the defendant under the concept of double jeopardy, meaning that once the defendant is found not guilty, the same criminal charges cannot be brought against the defendant again. 

James denies any wrongdoing.

“As I have said from the start, the charges against me are baseless,” she said Thursday in a statement. ”It is time for this unchecked weaponization of our justice system to stop.”

Tags: ,

SAN provides
Unbiased. Straight Facts.

Don’t just take our word for it.


Certified balanced reporting

According to media bias experts at AllSides

AllSides Certified Balanced May 2025

Transparent and credible

Awarded a perfect reliability rating from NewsGuard

100/100

Welcome back to trustworthy journalism.

Find out more

Why this story matters

Federal prosecutors' repeated attempts to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James highlight the potential for political influence in the legal system and raise questions about prosecutorial discretion and the boundaries of double jeopardy protections.

Legal process and prosecutorial discretion

The ongoing efforts to seek indictments against James, even after grand jury rejection, draw attention to the legal norms surrounding prosecutorial decision-making and the limits of repeated indictment attempts.

Political influence in the justice system

According to the article, President Donald Trump has urged his administration to pursue charges against James, raising concerns over political motives driving legal action against perceived opponents.

Judicial independence and protections

The dismissal of previous indictments due to issues with the appointment of prosecutors and the distinction between 'no bill' and acquittal highlight safeguards meant to protect the accused and maintain judicial independence.

SAN provides
Unbiased. Straight Facts.

Don’t just take our word for it.


Certified balanced reporting

According to media bias experts at AllSides

AllSides Certified Balanced May 2025

Transparent and credible

Awarded a perfect reliability rating from NewsGuard

100/100

Welcome back to trustworthy journalism.

Find out more

Daily Newsletter

Start your day with fact-based news

Start your day with fact-based news

Learn more about our emails. Unsubscribe anytime.

By entering your email, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.