Letitia James Challenges DOJ Subpoenas in Trump Probe

New York Attorney General Letitia James is contesting a federal criminal investigation into her actions against President Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association (NRA). Court documents unsealed on October 24, 2025, reveal that James is fighting against subpoenas issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ), alleging that the DOJ is engaging in “selective enforcement” related to her civil fraud cases.

In her ruling, Judge Lorna Schofield, appointed by former President Barack Obama, emphasized the importance of transparency in this matter, stating, “Unsealing this action is not only permissible but compelled.” The judge highlighted that the information under scrutiny is not confidential and has significant implications beyond the current legal battle.

The controversy began in August 2025 when John A. Sarcone III, acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York, issued subpoenas linked to James’s civil fraud case against Trump and her case against the NRA. This investigation follows James’s indictment in a separate mortgage fraud case in Virginia, where she faces two charges related to bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

James’s legal team argues that the DOJ’s subpoenas are retaliatory actions by the Executive Branch and contest the legitimacy of the appointment of the acting U.S. Attorney. The judge noted that James claims these subpoenas undermine state sovereignty and are rooted in the improper appointment of Lindsey Halligan to her position.

In a motion filed on October 15, James’s attorneys stated that Trump did not successfully present claims of “selective prosecution” during his trial. They assert that Trump, having returned to the White House, is now using federal subpoena power to target the New York State Attorney General’s Office. They argue that this represents an effort to convert personal grievances into a federal criminal prosecution, aimed specifically at undermining a law enforcement agency that has held Trump accountable.

James’s legal battles are not new. In February 2024, she secured a civil fraud judgment against Trump amounting to $454 million after alleging he inflated his assets to obtain favorable loan terms. However, a New York appeals court later deemed the penalty excessive while upholding the fraud finding.

The DOJ’s case relies heavily on a dissenting judge’s opinion that suggested James harbored political motives in her actions against Trump. In her response, James’s attorneys argue that one dissenting opinion does not provide sufficient grounds for the subpoenas and that the alleged improper appointment of the acting U.S. Attorney invalidates them.

As James continues her fight against the mortgage fraud charges in Virginia, she is also challenging Halligan’s appointment, which has drawn scrutiny due to its timing with other high-profile indictments, including that of former FBI Director James Comey. Comey faces charges related to allegedly lying to Congress and obstructing a Congressional investigation, also brought forth by Halligan.

This ongoing legal saga highlights the intersection of state and federal jurisdiction and raises questions about the implications of political dynamics in judicial processes. James’s case is indicative of the broader tensions between state attorneys general and federal authorities, particularly in high-stakes political contexts.