Lead
New York Attorney General Letitia James asked a federal judge on Friday to dismiss a two-count indictment tied to a 2020 mortgage, arguing the prosecution is the product of President Donald Trump’s yearslong personal vendetta. Her lawyers filed a motion asserting the charges are both vindictive and selectively enforced, and they attached more than 350 public statements and posts by Trump as evidence of improper motive. James was indicted last month on one count of making false statements to a financial institution and one count of bank fraud; she has pleaded not guilty and called the case baseless. The motion asks for dismissal with prejudice or, if the court declines, for expedited discovery and a hearing to test the claims.
Key Takeaways
- The motion to dismiss was filed Friday and targets a two-count federal indictment related to a 2020 mortgage, filed last month in the Eastern District of Virginia.
- Prosecutors charged James with one count of making false statements to a financial institution and one count of bank fraud; she has pleaded not guilty.
- James’ attorneys attached more than 350 public statements, Truth Social posts and other remarks by President Trump spanning roughly six years as alleged evidence of animus.
- The filing also cites roughly two dozen statements from other officials, including former Florida AG Pam Bondi and Ed Martin of DOJ’s Weaponization Working Group.
- Her lawyers argue selective prosecution by noting DOJ has not pursued similar mortgage issues involving senior Trump officials.
- Separately, James is contesting the legality of Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; oral arguments on related challenges are scheduled next week.
- James previously led a civil probe that resulted in a state judge finding Trump liable and ordering more than $350 million in damages; appellate decisions have modified parts of that ruling and appeals continue.
Background
Letitia James rose to statewide office after campaigning in part on promises to scrutinize Donald Trump’s business practices. Her office opened a wide-ranging civil investigation of the Trump Organization and in 2022 filed a civil suit alleging asset inflation to secure favorable loans and insurance terms. In that civil proceeding a state judge found Trump liable and ordered more than $350 million in monetary relief, a liability finding later upheld by an appeals court while the remedy was partly vacated as excessive; both parties continue to appeal facets of the record.
The criminal case against James is rooted in a 2020 mortgage on a Norfolk, Virginia property that prosecutors say she described as a second home rather than an investment property, securing a better interest rate. A person familiar with the property told reporters James’ grandniece lives there and pays no rent. The indictment was brought after a Trump-picked U.S. attorney, Lindsey Halligan, assumed the Eastern District of Virginia post following the resignation of her predecessor amid public pressure to bring charges against James.
The filing comes against a backdrop of frequent public statements by Trump calling for investigations and prosecutions of officials who pursued legal action against him. James’ lawyers frame those statements as systematic pressure on the executive branch and Department of Justice that, they say, corrupted normal prosecutorial judgment. Parallel procedural challenges are underway: James is contesting Halligan’s appointment while another indicted former Trump critic, James Comey, has raised similar questions in a coordinated set of hearings next week.
Main Event
In their motion filed Friday, James’ attorneys argue the indictment should be dismissed with prejudice because it is tainted by unconstitutional motive. The brief contends the President and others repeatedly amplified calls for James to be investigated and prosecuted, and that those communications demonstrate vindictiveness and selective enforcement. As part of the filing, lawyers attached more than 350 public statements and social posts by Trump and approximately two dozen statements from allied officials to support the claim of partisan animus.
The motion describes the prosecution as both vindictive—brought in retaliation for James’ official actions—and selective—targeting her while leaving similar conduct by Trump officials unexamined. The attorneys request immediate dismissal; alternatively, they ask the court to order expedited disclosure of evidence and to schedule a hearing so the defense can test prosecutorial motive through discovery and witness testimony. The legal theory centers on constitutional due process and equal protection protections against prosecutions driven by impermissible factors.
Separately, James is pressing a challenge to the authority of Lindsey Halligan, whom President Trump selected to lead the Eastern District of Virginia. Her team argues Halligan’s appointment was unlawful and that the office’s actions, including a subpoena in a separate DOJ civil-rights inquiry of James’ office, were therefore invalid. A judge will hear oral arguments next week on the appointment challenges, which are being litigated alongside similar claims from other defendants.
The underlying criminal allegation alleges James falsely claimed the Norfolk home was a second residence to obtain a lower mortgage rate. Prosecutors say that statement to a financial institution amounted to bank fraud and a false statement; James denies wrongdoing and says the charges are politically motivated. Her legal team emphasized the relatively narrow factual scope of the indictment while placing it in a broader landscape of alleged political targeting.
Analysis & Implications
The legal standard for proving vindictive or selective prosecution is deliberately demanding: a defendant must show the prosecution was motivated by impermissible considerations such as retaliation or discrimination and that similarly situated individuals were treated differently. Courts typically require rigorous evidence beyond political rhetoric, though sustained, targeted public attacks by a sitting president can factor into the analysis if linked to prosecutorial decisions. James’ team seeks to bridge that evidentiary gap by compiling hundreds of public statements and asserting a temporal and causal link between those statements and the decision to bring charges.
Even with extensive documentary support, securing dismissal on constitutional grounds is uncommon. Judges balance claims of improper motive against deference to prosecutorial independence and the institutional posture of the Department of Justice. If the court allows discovery, James might gain access to internal DOJ memoranda, communications and decision records that could either substantiate or weaken her claim; a discovery phase could meaningfully change the trajectory of the case by revealing contemporaneous rationales for the indictment.
The appointment challenge to Lindsey Halligan raises separate but related stakes: if a court finds the appointment procedurally defective, actions she authorized could be vulnerable. Courts have at times invalidated prosecutions tied to improperly appointed prosecutors, which could lead to dismissal or the need for recharging by properly appointed officials. Conversely, a court rejection of the appointment challenge would strengthen the prosecution’s procedural footing and shift the dispute back to evidentiary questions about motive and selective treatment.
Beyond the courtroom, the dispute has political and institutional implications. For DOJ independence, a finding that presidential pressure directed prosecutions would be significant and could prompt policy reviews on how the executive branch communicates about ongoing or potential criminal matters. Politically, the litigation will likely reverberate in public debates over the justice system’s impartiality and may influence electoral narratives and the positions of state and federal actors who face similar scrutiny.
Comparison & Data
| Item | James | Trump/Related |
|---|---|---|
| Criminal charges | 2 counts (false statements; bank fraud) | Various civil and criminal matters (ongoing) |
| Civil judgment | — | State judge ordered >$350 million; liability mostly upheld on appeal |
| Public statements attached | 350+ by Trump; ~24 from other officials | — |
The table summarizes the discrete contours of the James filing: two criminal counts in the indictment, a large bundle of public statements appended to the motion, and the overlay of an existing civil record that produced a more than $350 million damage order. These data points frame both the legal theories pressed by James’ lawyers and the practical questions judges will assess in upcoming hearings.
Reactions & Quotes
James’ legal team framed the filing as a constitutional defense, arguing the prosecution is compromised by political motive.
“The Government’s conduct here has offended the very core of due process and equal protection principles,”
Motion to dismiss, counsel for AG Letitia James
Her lawyers additionally pointed to the President’s sustained public criticisms as proof of animus.
“The Executive has shouted six years of direct evidence of genuine animus through a megaphone,”
Motion to dismiss, counsel for AG Letitia James
James herself has publicly described the charges as unwarranted and has pleaded not guilty; prosecutors maintain the indictment arises from a focused mortgage fraud inquiry. DOJ officials have defended the appointment and the subpoena cited by James as lawful in public statements to reporters.
Unconfirmed
- Whether internal DOJ deliberations explicitly referenced President Trump’s public statements in deciding to indict James remains unclear pending discovery and has not been independently verified.
- Reports that James’ grandniece occupies the Norfolk home and pays no rent come from a person familiar with the property; those facts have not been independently confirmed in court filings available to the public.
- The extent to which other mortgage cases involving Trump aides were investigated but not charged has been asserted by James’ lawyers; DOJ has not publicly disclosed a full comparative enforcement record.
Bottom Line
James’ motion to dismiss ties a narrow criminal indictment to a much broader narrative of alleged presidential pressure and seeks an extraordinary remedy: dismissal with prejudice. The filing relies on high-volume public evidence—more than 350 statements and dozens of allied remarks—to establish motive, and it pairs that argument with a parallel challenge to the appointing prosecutor’s authority.
The near-term legal battlegrounds are predictable: a judge will soon decide whether to permit discovery into prosecutorial files and to hold an evidentiary hearing, and separate oral arguments next week will test the legality of the U.S. attorney’s appointment. Absent decisive discovery evidence, dismissal on constitutional grounds is difficult to obtain; nonetheless, a court-ordered disclosure phase could materially change the facts available to both sides and to the public. Observers should watch the court’s rulings on discovery and appointment issues, which will shape whether this dispute ends quickly or expands into a protracted contest over DOJ independence and executive influence.
Sources
- CNN — news report