Something remarkable happened last week. A grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia, returned a no true bill—meaning it found insufficient evidence—on a proposed mortgage fraud indictment presented by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. 

What is remarkable about this outcome? It rarely happens. Federal prosecutors almost always secure indictments from grand juries. I can only think of one time in my nearly 17 years as a federal prosecutor when a colleague in my office did not receive a true bill on a proposed indictment. Why? Partly because the standard for obtaining an indictment is low: the government must show only that there is “probable cause” that the person named in the indictment did what they are charged with doing in the indictment, not “beyond a reasonable doubt,” as is required to convict at a trial. However, there is a more significant and, I think, consequential reason. Prosecutors don’t want a negative result in the grand jury, and they don’t bring every possible case, only the ones where the evidence is strong enough to win at trial if necessary. Federal prosecutors have more cases than they can handle, and they use discretion to ensure that the ones the grand jury actually hears are the strongest, most worthy, and righteous prosecutions.  

That discretion clearly did not happen in the case of the mortgage fraud indictment against New York Attorney General Letitia James. How do we know? If you recall, this was not the first indictment sought against James on this mortgage fraud allegation. The original indictment was sought in October 2025. This followed dramatic events where U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert—Trump’s nominee for the role—resigned rather than go through with this case or the indictment against James Comey, as he was being directed to do by Pam Bondi (who was being directed by President Trump). 

Bondi then installed insurance-lawyer-turned-overnight-prosecutor Lindsey Halligan to pursue the James and Comey cases when no one else in the EDVA would. The grand jury voted yes on the indictments, but the career prosecutors in the office all seemingly refused to even work on this case, and a prosecutor from a different district was brought in to work on the case. Again, this is an unheard of scenario. 

Halligan was then disqualified as Interim U.S. Attorney by U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie on November 25th, and, therefore, the indictment against James (and Comey) was dismissed. Rather than leave it there, as most reasonable prosecutors would do, Bondi and Halligan decided to take a second bite at the apple despite there being no new evidence that we know of (also unheard of). And that is how we got to this point.

So, what now? The interim U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, Alina Habba, installed by the same method as Halligan, has now resigned after a federal district court and an appeals court ruled her appointment was invalid. Halligan should also step away, but the DOJ is showing no sign that such a reasonable next step will happen. In fact, they seem to be digging in. 

Reportedly, there has been quite a bit of chaos in the EDVA, with prosecutors in the office being instructed, uninstructed, and instructed again to keep signing indictments and documents in Halligan’s name even after a district court judge ruled she was not a legitimate U.S. Attorney. For weeks now, prosecutors have been told to keep signing her name, despite a court’s ruling to the contrary, based on a supposed “wiggle room” in Judge Currie’s opinion about Halligan’s status, putting line prosecutors in an unfair and untenable position: disobey their bosses or disobey the court. Judges in the district have also reportedly been pushing back by rejecting filings with Halligan’s signature. And yet, on the very same day that Habba stepped aside, Bondi and Deputy AG Todd Blanche issued a statement attacking judges in that district for purportedly launching an “unconscionable campaign of bias and hostility” against Halligan, calling it “political” and “judicial activism.” They even shamelessly claimed to be standing up to protect “our attorneys” in the office who are struggling. 

Of course, the right way to spare these prosecutors from being shoved between a rock and a hard place would be for the DOJ to honor the court’s ruling and Halligan to step aside. Or the Department could simply appeal Judge Currie’s ruling. But they likely know that it is a losing battle. Instead, they would rather score political hits by smearing Article III judges.

The case against Letitia James is over for now, unless this DOJ decides to try to indict her a third time, which would be stunningly vindictive (and unheard of). It remains to be seen whether the DOJ will try to re-indict Jim Comey. Both of these cases, however, have unnecessarily strained the career prosecutors doing important work, undermined the Trump DOJ’s already waning credibility with the courts, and further eroded public trust that our law enforcement isn’t a tool of political weaponization.