NORFOLK, Virginia — A federal grand jury in Norfolk refused on Thursday to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James on mortgage fraud charges, returning a “no true bill” and handing the Justice Department a second setback in its attempt to prosecute one of President Donald Trump’s most prominent critics. The decision came ten days after a federal judge threw out the original case, ruling the prosecutor who brought it had been unlawfully appointed.

Key Points

• A federal grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia, refused on Thursday, November 5, 2026, to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James for alleged mortgage fraud.
• The refusal came ten days after Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed the earlier case, ruling that US Attorney Lindsey Halligan had been unlawfully appointed.
• Prosecutors alleged James listed a Norfolk home bought in 2020 as a second home, not an investment property, to obtain a cheaper mortgage rate.
• Halligan personally presented the case to the grand jury in October but failed to convince a majority of jurors to indict.
• James thanked the grand jurors; prosecutors are expected to try again, possibly before a grand jury in Alexandria.

What Happened

On Thursday, November 5, 2026, a federal grand jury in Norfolk declined to indict Letitia James, New York’s attorney general. Its “no true bill” means prosecutors could not persuade a majority of jurors there was probable cause to charge her with mortgage fraud over a Norfolk home bought in 2020.

The vote was a direct rebuff of the Justice Department’s bid to revive the case. Ten days earlier, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie had dismissed the original prosecution after finding Lindsey Halligan, US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, had been unlawfully appointed — a ruling that wiped out Halligan’s actions in the case, including the indictment itself.

Prosecutors went back anyway. Halligan herself presented the evidence in October — an unusual step for a US attorney — and asked the jurors to charge James again. This time the grand jury said no, and a Justice Department representative declined to comment. It was the second time in recent days that a grand jury rejected the department’s attempt to refile a case, according to reports.

Background and Context

James has been one of Trump’s most persistent legal adversaries. As New York’s attorney general since 2019, she brought the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization that produced a major judgment against the president’s family business. She won a third term on November 3, defeating Trump-backed challenger Saritha Komatireddy.

The allegation centres on a house James bought in Norfolk in 2020. Prosecutors said she listed it as a second home rather than an investment property, securing a lower rate worth about $19,000 over the life of the loan. James denies wrongdoing; her attorney, Abbe Lowell, calls it a paperwork dispute turned into a federal charge against a political opponent.

The case was brought alongside a similar prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey, also indicted by Halligan, and Currie’s ruling cast doubt on both. Halligan, a former Trump White House aide, was installed in the Eastern District post without Senate confirmation.

Letitia James Mortgage Fraud Case: What Prosecutors Alleged

The government’s theory was simple: James obtained a cheaper mortgage by misrepresenting how she would use the Norfolk property. A second home typically carries a lower rate than an investment property, and prosecutors said James claimed that status even though the property was, in their view, an investment.

The alleged saving — about $19,000 — was modest by federal fraud standards. Critics argued a dispute over one mortgage application, for a relatively small sum, would rarely be pursued as a federal prosecution at all.

Grand juries almost always return the indictments prosecutors seek: the standard is only probable cause, the proceedings are one-sided, and no defence lawyer is present. A refusal is rare; a second in the same matter is rarer still. The Norfolk vote suggests jurors were not persuaded the evidence supported a criminal charge.

Reactions and Quotes

James said she was grateful to the grand jurors. Lowell criticised the repeated attempts, saying prosecutors should not keep shopping for an indictment after a judge dismissed the case and a grand jury declined to charge her.

The Justice Department declined to comment. Prosecutors have not said whether they will present the case again, but reports say they are expected to try, possibly in Alexandria, Virginia, the Eastern District’s other main courthouse.

The outcome will be read in Washington as another test of the department’s credibility. The administration has pursued criminal cases against several of the president’s critics, including Comey, and the courts have now pushed back twice in the James matter.

Why It Matters

The refusal matters beyond James herself. It is a check on the use of federal prosecutions against political opponents, delivered not by a judge or a politician but by ordinary citizens on a grand jury. It also raises questions about the department’s judgment in pursuing a case two bodies have now rejected.

For the administration, the result is embarrassing: the department went to great lengths to revive the prosecution, with the US attorney personally presenting the case, and still could not secure an indictment. For Democrats, who swept Congress on November 3, the episode is fresh evidence for the investigations they plan into the department’s handling of cases involving the president’s critics.

What Happens Next

Prosecutors are expected to try again, possibly in Alexandria. A new grand jury would hear the same evidence and could reach a different conclusion, since grand jury decisions do not bind later ones. But a third attempt would invite criticism that the department is refusing to accept the answer it has now received twice.

James returns to her duties as New York’s attorney general, where she has said she will keep challenging the administration in court. The department has given no timetable for further action.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a “no true bill”?

A “no true bill” is a grand jury’s decision not to indict: a majority found no probable cause, so the case cannot proceed.

Why was the first case against Letitia James dismissed?

Judge Currie ruled US Attorney Lindsey Halligan had been unlawfully appointed, nullifying her actions — including the James and Comey indictments.

What was James accused of?

Prosecutors alleged she listed a Norfolk home bought in 2020 as a second home, not an investment property, to get a cheaper mortgage rate, saving potentially about $19,000 over the loan’s life.

Can prosecutors try again after a grand jury refuses to indict?

Yes. A refusal does not bar prosecutors from presenting the same matter to another grand jury, and reports say they are expected to try again, possibly in Alexandria.

Who is Lindsey Halligan?

Halligan is a former Trump White House aide and lawyer installed as US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; a federal judge ruled her appointment unlawful.

Related: Letitia James wins third term as New York attorney general in midterm victory • Democrats plan Musk and Miller probes as Jeffries backs impeaching Hegseth after midterm rout