Legal Challenges Faced by Letitia James Amidst Allegations of Political Vendetta
Nov, 7 2025
In their motion, James' lawyers stated, "The Government’s conduct here has offended the very core of due process and equal protection principles in transforming the Department of Justice into the President’s personal agents of revenge." They contended that the only appropriate remedy is dismissal with prejudice, citing a tainted investigation.
The motion included over 350 public statements made by Trump regarding James over the past six years, as well as remarks from other officials, including Attorney General Pam Bondi and Director of the Department of Justice’s Weaponization Working Group Ed Martin.
James faces charges of making false statements to a financial institution and bank fraud, related to a mortgage for a home in Norfolk, Virginia. Prosecutors allege that she misrepresented the property as a second home rather than an investment property to secure a more favorable interest rate. James has denied the charges, labeling them as baseless, and has pleaded not guilty. Reports indicate that her grandniece resides in the home without paying rent.
In addition to the indictment, James is contesting the legality of Lindsey Halligan's appointment as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan was appointed by Trump following the resignation of the previous U.S. attorney, who faced pressure to pursue the case against James despite concerns about its validity. A judge is set to hear arguments regarding this challenge, alongside a similar case involving former FBI Director James Comey.
James has a history of conflict with Trump, having campaigned for the attorney general position on a platform that included investigating his real estate dealings. Her office initiated a civil lawsuit against Trump and his organization in 2022, alleging that they inflated property values to obtain better loan and insurance rates. A state judge found Trump liable, ordering him to pay over $350 million, a decision that was partially upheld by a New York appeals court.
James' legal team emphasized Trump's public calls for her investigation and prosecution as evidence of animus, arguing that the Department of Justice cannot distance itself from the motivations behind her prosecution. They also claimed that the prosecution is selective, noting that other officials with similar allegations have not faced similar scrutiny.
Furthermore, James is seeking to quash a subpoena related to a separate investigation into her office's potential civil rights violations concerning the inquiry into Trump and his organization. Her lawyers argue that the subpoena is retaliatory and improperly issued, as the U.S. attorney who signed it is allegedly unlawfully serving in that capacity. The Department of Justice has defended both the appointment and the subpoena.