Letitia James Challenges DOJ Probe Alleging Selective Enforcement

New York Attorney General Letitia James is contesting a federal criminal investigation that alleges “selective enforcement” related to her legal actions against Donald Trump‘s business and the National Rifle Association (NRA). Court documents unsealed on October 24, 2025, reveal the ongoing tensions between James and the Department of Justice (DOJ), which issued subpoenas in connection with her civil fraud case against Trump and the NRA.

Judge Lorna Schofield, appointed by former President Barack Obama, emphasized the significance of unsealing these documents, indicating they touch on national issues with extensive implications. In her ruling, Schofield stated, “Unsealing this action is not only permissible but compelled. One simple fact drives this conclusion: the information at issue is not secret.”

The subpoenas were reportedly issued by acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York John A. Sarcone III as part of a broader inquiry into James’s legal pursuits. James faces separate mortgage fraud charges in Virginia, including allegations of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

James argues that the DOJ’s actions represent retaliation by the Executive Branch and raise concerns about state sovereignty, further alleging that the appointment of the acting U.S. Attorney was improper. She contends that this move is part of a broader campaign to undermine her office’s work, stating that Trump is using the grand jury subpoena power to pursue a personal vendetta against her.

In a motion filed on October 15, James’s legal team highlighted that Trump failed to substantiate claims of “selective prosecution, retaliation, and bad faith” during his trial. They argue that his current position in the Oval Office, along with his lawyers now positioned at high levels within the DOJ, has enabled him to misuse federal power against her office.

James previously sued Trump in 2022 for allegedly inflating his assets to secure favorable loans, leading to a $454 million civil fraud judgment against him in February 2024. However, a New York appeals court later overturned a significant portion of the penalty, citing its “excessive” nature while affirming that Trump had committed fraud.

The DOJ’s reliance on a dissenting opinion from a judge, which suggested that James’s motivations were politically charged, does not provide sufficient grounds for the subpoenas, according to James’s filings. Her attorneys assert that one dissenting view cannot justify such federal action, emphasizing that the acting U.S. Attorney’s appointment is legally questionable.

James is also contesting her mortgage fraud charges in Virginia by challenging the legitimacy of the appointment of Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. Attorney. Notably, Halligan has also indicted former FBI Director James Comey for charges related to lying to Congress and obstructing a Congressional investigation.

The outcome of this legal battle could have significant ramifications not only for James and her office but also for the political landscape surrounding Trump and his associates. As the case unfolds, it highlights the complex interplay between state and federal judicial actions, particularly when high-profile figures are involved.