The Justice Department presented charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James to a second grand jury in Alexandria, which again declined to indict her. A Norfolk grand jury had similarly refused to return charges on Dec. 4. The renewed effort came after a federal judge found an interim U.S. attorney's appointment unlawful and set aside earlier indictments, which were dismissed without prejudice. Defense lawyers call the prosecutions politically motivated, while legal experts warn repeated grand jury rejections may signal a weak case.
Second Grand Jury Refuses To Indict Letitia James After DOJ Re-Presents Case
New York Attorney General Letitia James attends a press conference in New York City on October 21, 2025. - Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
A grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, declined on Thursday to return a new indictment against New York Attorney General Letitia James, marking the second time prosecutors have been rebuffed in their effort to refile charges, according to multiple sources.
The Justice Department presented the case to the Alexandria panel just one week after a different grand jury in Norfolk likewise declined to bring charges on Dec. 4. Of the five matters the Alexandria grand jury considered, jurors returned four indictments and issued one "no true bill" — the formal term for a grand jury rejection.
Background And Legal Context
The renewed grand jury effort followed a federal judge's ruling that an interim U.S. attorney, Lindsey Halligan, was unlawfully appointed, a decision that led to dismissal of earlier prosecutions of James and former FBI Director James Comey. U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie set aside actions flowing from Halligan's appointment but dismissed the prior indictments "without prejudice," leaving open the possibility of refiling.
Prosecutors have accused James of misstating her occupancy intentions on mortgage paperwork for a Norfolk home — listing the property in a way that allegedly secured a more favorable mortgage rate — and said she instead rented the house. James pleaded not guilty to counts of making false statements to a financial institution and bank fraud before the earlier case was dismissed.
Responses And Reactions
Abbe Lowell, James’ attorney, condemned the renewed presentation to a grand jury: "Any further attempts to revive the charges against my 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. This case already has been a stain on this Department’s reputation and raises troubling questions about its integrity."
The Justice Department declined to comment on the grand jury decision.
Broader Concerns And What Comes Next
Legal scholars and former judges told media outlets that repeated grand jury rejections can raise policy and constitutional concerns. Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner observed that prosecutors generally should not present charges unless they reasonably believe they can secure a jury conviction; losing before a grand jury once may indicate weak evidentiary support.
Defense attorneys for James have argued the probe is politically motivated, pointing to public statements from former President Donald Trump calling for prosecutions of his critics. Prosecutors counter that presidential social-media posts reflect opinion rather than formal directions to Justice Department officials.
With the Alexandria grand jury again declining to indict, the Justice Department must decide whether to present the matter to yet another grand jury or to abandon the effort. James’ legal team says it will continue to fight the charges and press claims that the prosecutions were driven by political animus.
This article was updated with additional details.
