Grand Jury Rejects Second Indictment Against Letitia James in Virginia Case

In a significant setback for the Department of Justice, a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia declined to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James on Thursday, according to a DOJ source. This development comes just days after a federal judge dismissed the initial indictment against James, one of President Donald Trump’s prominent political opponents.

The DOJ’s failure to secure a new indictment represents an unusual rebuff in the federal justice system, where grand juries typically approve charges recommended by prosecutors. Federal grand juries have historically high indictment rates, making this rejection particularly noteworthy in legal circles.

Last week, Judge Cameron Currie invalidated the original indictment after determining that Lindsey Halligan, the prosecutor who brought the charges, was serving unlawfully as interim U.S. Attorney. Rather than pursuing the expected appeal announced by Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, the Justice Department opted to attempt a fresh indictment through a different grand jury.

Sources familiar with the matter indicate that prosecutors haven’t abandoned their pursuit of charges against James. “I’d say don’t celebrate just yet,” one source cautioned, suggesting that the DOJ may continue its efforts to bring a case against the New York Attorney General.

James was previously charged with bank fraud in Norfolk, Virginia. She entered a not guilty plea and had filed motions arguing for dismissal on multiple grounds before Judge Currie’s ruling invalidated the case entirely.

The case has drawn significant attention as it involves the top law enforcement officer of New York State, who has been a persistent legal adversary of President Trump. James led a high-profile civil fraud case against Trump’s business empire before his return to the White House, resulting in a substantial judgment against the former and current president.

Abbe Lowell, James’ attorney, issued a strongly worded statement characterizing the grand jury’s decision as a “decisive rejection” of what he described as a politically motivated prosecution.

“A federal court threw this case out after President Trump illegally installed a U.S. Attorney to file baseless charges against Attorney General James that career prosecutors refused to bring,” Lowell said. “This should be the end of this case. If they continue, undeterred by a court ruling and a grand jury’s rejection of the charges, it will be a shocking assault on the rule of law and a devastating blow to the integrity of our justice system.”

The controversy surrounding Halligan’s appointment has raised questions about the Trump administration’s Department of Justice appointments and prosecutorial decisions. Legal experts have noted the unusual circumstances of the case, particularly the judge’s finding that Halligan’s appointment violated proper procedures for installing interim U.S. Attorneys.

The Justice Department’s handling of high-profile cases involving political figures has faced increasing scrutiny since President Trump returned to office. Critics have expressed concern about potential politicization of the justice system, while supporters of the administration maintain that investigations into officials like James are legitimate exercises of federal law enforcement authority.

The grand jury’s rejection of charges adds another layer of complexity to an already contentious legal battle that straddles the line between law enforcement and politics. As the DOJ weighs its next steps, legal observers are watching closely to see whether prosecutors will make a third attempt to bring charges or if this marks the end of the federal case against the New York Attorney General.

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the grand jury’s decision or its plans regarding future prosecution efforts.