New York, December 5, 2025 — In a significant development in the ongoing legal saga surrounding New York Attorney General Letitia James, a federal grand jury has declined to re-indict her, marking the second failed attempt by federal prosecutors to pursue criminal charges. This decision comes after a federal judge previously dismissed a mortgage fraud case against James, highlighting growing concerns over the politicization of the justice system in high-profile cases involving critics of former President Donald Trump.

![New York Attorney General Letitia James speaks to the media outside the US District Court in Norfolk, Virginia, October 2025. (File Photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)]

Background of the Case

The controversy began when federal prosecutors attempted to revive allegations of mortgage fraud against James, a prominent Democratic figure and a vocal critic of Trump. Last month, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed the charges, ruling that federal prosecutor Lindsey Halligan had been unlawfully appointed. This ruling effectively invalidated the first prosecution attempt, prompting the Department of Justice to try again.

James has consistently maintained that these legal efforts are politically motivated. On Thursday, she reiterated her stance, calling the allegations “baseless” and denouncing what she described as the “unchecked weaponisation of our justice system” aimed at silencing political opponents.

Her attorney, Abbe Lowell, emphasized the gravity of the matter, stating that any attempt to continue the prosecution would represent “a shocking assault on the rule of law and a devastating blow to the integrity of our justice system.”

Political Context and Retribution Claims

The legal actions against James have occurred in the context of her office’s civil fraud case against Trump and his family business. In 2024, a New York judge ordered Trump to pay a $450 million penalty for fraudulently inflating his net worth to deceive lenders. Although a New York appeals court later nullified the financial penalty, it upheld the judge’s finding that Trump was liable for fraudulent activity.

Trump has repeatedly characterized these cases as part of a broader political “witch hunt,” pointing to multiple legal challenges he has faced since leaving office, including four criminal cases that were later dropped.

Related High-Profile Federal Cases

Attorney General James is not the only prominent Trump critic recently targeted with federal charges. Former FBI Director James Comey and former National Security Adviser John Bolton have also faced federal criminal investigations.

• Comey, who oversaw investigations into Trump’s 2016 campaign and alleged Russian collusion, had charges against him dismissed in November due to the same unlawful appointment issue that affected James.
• Bolton pleaded not guilty to charges alleging the mishandling of classified documents and sharing sensitive government information with relatives.

These cases have sparked national debate about the intersection of law, politics, and accountability, raising questions about the impartiality of federal prosecutions in politically sensitive matters.

What’s Next

Despite the grand jury’s refusal to re-indict James, federal prosecutors reportedly continue to explore options for pursuing a new indictment, according to sources cited by Reuters. Meanwhile, James has pledged to continue fighting these legal battles, framing them as an ongoing attempt to undermine her work and reputation.

“The grand jury’s refusal to re-indict Attorney General James is a decisive rejection of a case that should never have existed in the first place,” said Lowell, underscoring the broader implications for justice and political accountability.

This high-profile legal drama underscores the heightened scrutiny and partisan tensions surrounding federal prosecutions of political figures and continues to dominate headlines as both legal and political communities await further developments.