Grand Jury Rejects DOJ Bid to Indict New York Attorney General as Questions Mount Over Trump-Appointed Prosecutors
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department suffered another unexpected setback this week after a federal grand jury declined to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James, marking one of several rare rebukes facing prosecutors appointed during former President Donald J. Trump’s current term. The decision comes amid mounting scrutiny over the legality of multiple U.S. attorneys installed by the administration to pursue cases against perceived political adversaries.
According to people familiar with the proceedings, the Justice Department presented its evidence before a grand jury in Norfolk, Va., on Thursday, relying not on the Trump-appointed acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia—whose appointment had already been struck down—but on a separate prosecutor. Even so, jurors issued a “no bill,” rejecting the request for an indictment. Former prosecutors describe such an outcome as exceedingly uncommon; grand juries typically return indictments in the vast majority of cases due to the low threshold of probable cause and the absence of defense counsel or a presiding judge.
The failed effort represents the second time a grand jury has rejected charges tied to Trump-directed investigations, part of a nationwide pattern in which jurors have declined indictments involving figures such as former FBI Director James Comey. Similar no-bills have emerged in Washington, D.C., and California—an almost unheard-of string of refusals.
At the same moment the Norfolk panel was deliberating, Ms. James appeared in federal court in Albany, N.Y., where lawyers debated the authority of another Trump-installed U.S. attorney, John Sarcone, to investigate her in a separate matter. The judge overseeing that case, Laura Schofield of the Southern District of New York, is weighing whether Mr. Sarcone’s appointment violated federal vacancy rules, which limit how long an acting U.S. attorney may serve and who may fill the position.
If disqualified, Mr. Sarcone would become at least the fifth Trump-aligned prosecutor removed or invalidated in recent months. Courts in New Jersey, Virginia and Washington have already struck down several such appointments, finding that the administration circumvented Senate confirmation and statutory limits by repeatedly installing acting officials to pursue politically charged investigations.
Legal experts say the underlying cases are further weakened by the absence of substantive evidence. Ms. James, a Democrat, successfully prosecuted both the National Rifle Association and Mr. Trump’s family real-estate business in high-profile civil cases. Those victories have drawn the former president’s ire but provide little basis for criminal charges, analysts say.
The Albany hearing also spotlighted questions surrounding Mr. Sarcone’s tenure. Shortly after taking office, he reported an attempted assault by an undocumented immigrant—an allegation later downgraded after surveillance footage contradicted key details. Judges in the district have since declined to renew his term, raising concerns about his credibility and independence.
Former prosecutors say it is uncommon for subpoenas—let alone an entire prosecutor—to be invalidated. But the legal challenges facing the administration appear to reflect broader institutional resistance to political loyalists lacking traditional qualifications or experience.
For now, officials say they may attempt to present the James case to yet another grand jury. Whether a third attempt will succeed—or whether additional courts will continue to strike down Trump-appointed prosecutors—remains uncertain.
