A renewed effort by the United States Justice Department to prosecute New York's Attorney General, Letitia James, on mortgage fraud allegations has been halted after a grand jury declined to issue a new indictment.
Grand Jury Declines to Re-Indict
According to a source familiar with the proceedings, prosecutors presented evidence to a grand jury in Virginia on Thursday 4 December 2025. Their goal was to secure a fresh indictment against Ms James. This attempt failed, marking the latest setback for the controversial case.
The source, who spoke anonymously as they were not authorised to discuss the matter, confirmed the grand jury's decision. This development follows a prior ruling by a federal judge who threw out the original mortgage fraud case. That case had been actively encouraged by former President Donald Trump.
A Case Mired in Legal and Political Controversy
The legal saga began when Ms James was initially charged in October 2025. The charges were brought by a US attorney installed by the Trump administration. This official replaced a prosecutor who had resigned under pressure to pursue criminal cases against both Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey, a persistent critic of Mr Trump.
The judge's decision to dismiss the initial prosecution was based on a finding that the US attorney presenting the cases had been illegally appointed. Despite this week's rejection, the Justice Department retains the option to try and present the case to a grand jury again in the future.
James Accuses Administration of Political Vengeance
Throughout the process, Letitia James has vehemently denied any wrongdoing. She has publicly accused the Trump administration of weaponising the justice system to exact revenge on political opponents. Her stance frames the indictment attempts as a politically motivated attack rather than a legitimate legal proceeding.
The failed indictment underscores the ongoing tensions between the former president's allies and legal officials who have investigated or criticised him. The case against James, closely watched on both sides of the Atlantic, highlights deep concerns about the politicisation of judicial processes.
