Grand jury declines to reindict Letitia James

By Katelyn Polantz, Kaitlan Collins, Holmes Lybrand, CNN

(CNN) — A grand jury declined to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James after being asked to look at the mortgage fraud case against her a second time, 10 days after a federal judge threw out the initial charges against her, according to a person familiar with the development Thursday.

Another source familiar with the situation said there should be no premature celebration, because the Justice Department could try to seek the indictment a third time.

A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment on grand jury matters. The grand jury was in court until noon on Thursday.

The quick move by the Justice Department to present the case again to a grand jury shows the intensity of its efforts to prosecute James, a frequent Trump political target who was one of several enemies he has said on social media should face legal jeopardy.

Late last month, a federal judge said that Lindsey Halligan, Trump’s handpicked prosecutor, was unlawfully appointed as an interim US attorney and therefore the cases against James and another Trump political opponent — former FBI Director James Comey — must be dismissed. Halligan, a former White House adviser, was given the job after the Justice Department pushed out the previous interim US attorney amid increasing pressure to bring cases against Comey and James.

James had pleaded not guilty to one count of making false statements to a financial institution and one count of bank fraud.

“All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment” including the indictments against Comey and James “were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside,” Judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled.

But Currie tossed out the cases “without prejudice,” leaving open the possibility that both individuals could be re-charged for the same alleged conduct.

Prosecutors, however, face a long road ahead as several efforts to dismiss the charges remain — including claims of a selective and vindictive prosecution that James made before the case was thrown out.

Both James and Casey have pointed to a myriad of comments from Trump calling for them to be prosecuted, and in the case of James, have accused the government of “transforming the Department of Justice into the President’s personal agents of revenge.”

Their attorneys pointed to one of Trump’s Truth Social posts, which was directed at Attorney General Pam Bondi, in September.

“Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, ‘same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done,’” Trump wrote, referring to Comey, James, and Sen. Adam Schiff of California.

The Justice Department has argued that the president’s social media posts weren’t directing Bondi to act, but simply saying Trump believed those people should be prosecuted because they’re guilty.

In the cases against Comey and James, defense attorneys argued the 120-day period an interim US attorney is allowed to serve prior to confirmation from the Senate or approval from the district’s judges had already expired when Halligan took the position.

This, they said, meant that Halligan’s appointment was unlawful.

Currie agreed. She wrote that agreeing with the government’s position would give Trump and other officials authority “to evade the Senate confirmation process indefinitely by stacking successive 120-day appointments.”

“The 120-day clock began running with Mr. Siebert’s appointment on January 21, 2025,” she wrote, referring to Erik Siebert, who had been serving as the interim US attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia until he was pushed out in September. (After the 120-day period ended earlier this year, judges in the district voted to keep him in the job.)

“When that clock expired on May 21, 2025, so too did the Attorney General’s appointment authority,” Currie wrote, adding that Bondi’s “attempt to install” Halligan “was invalid and that Ms. Halligan has been unlawfully serving in that role since September 22, 2025.”

Last month’s ruling made Halligan the latest Trump US attorney nominee whose appointment was found to be unlawful. Federal judges found the process that the Trump administration used to name three US attorneys in New Jersey, Nevada and the Central District of California was unlawful.

But unlike with Halligan, judges did not throw out the indictments because they said there were other assistant US attorneys who worked on the case, and the interim US attorneys’ roles were limited, if they were involved at all. Halligan was the only person who signed the indictments for Comey and James.

This story is developing and will be updated.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2025 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.