Grand Jury Rejects Second Indictment Against James The federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia declined to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James on a second mortgage‑fraud charge on Dec 12, 2025, marking a repeat refusal after a Norfolk grand jury did the same on Dec 4 [1][2][3]. The panel returned four true‑bill indictments and one no‑true‑bill, effectively ending the Justice Department’s immediate attempt to revive the case [1][2]. Legal analysts note that two successive rejections of identical allegations are rare in federal prosecutions [1][3].

Judge Rules Original Indictment Invalid Due to Unlawful Appointment U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie voided the original indictment after finding that interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan’s appointment was unlawful, rendering all actions stemming from her authority invalid [2][3]. The ruling cited Halligan’s lack of prosecutorial experience and improper appointment process [3]. This judicial decision forced the DOJ to restart its case with a new grand jury presentation [2].

Allegations Center on False Mortgage Residence Claim The dismissed indictment alleged James listed a Norfolk, Virginia home as a second residence to secure a lower mortgage rate, despite never using the property and instead renting it out [1][2][3]. James has consistently denied the claim and entered a not‑guilty plea before the indictment’s dismissal [2]. The mortgage‑fraud allegation remains the sole substantive basis for the DOJ’s repeated attempts [1][3].

DOJ Weighs Third Indictment Amid Legal and Political Concerns Prosecutors, led by Halligan, must decide whether to present the same allegations to a third grand jury, a tactic previously used in immigration cases but considered extraordinary [1]. The Justice Department has remained silent on its next move, while critics argue the effort reflects a broader retribution strategy tied to former President Donald Trump’s agenda [1][2]. Legal experts warn that persisting with a case lacking a viable evidentiary foundation could raise constitutional and policy violations [1][3].

James, Lawyers, and Experts Decry Charges as Vindictive James’s attorney Abbe Lowell called the repeated prosecutions a “mockery of justice,” and James herself labeled the charges “baseless” on social media [2]. Retired Judge Nancy Gertner and NYU professor Ryan Goodman warned that the pattern suggests vindictive prosecution and potential overreach [1][3]. Their commentary underscores heightened scrutiny that any future indictment would face in courts and the public arena [3].