Letitia James Challenges DOJ Subpoenas in Trump, NRA Cases

New York Attorney General Letitia James is contesting a federal criminal investigation related to what she describes as “selective enforcement” in her cases against Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association (NRA). Court documents unsealed on October 24, 2025 reveal her legal team’s efforts to quash subpoenas issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The legal battle prompted Judge Lorna Schofield, appointed during the Obama administration, to declare the unsealing of these documents not only permissible but necessary. She emphasized, “One simple fact drives this conclusion: the information at issue is not secret.”

In August 2025, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York, John A. Sarcone III, issued subpoenas related to James’s civil fraud case against Trump’s business interests and her ongoing litigation against the NRA. The situation is further complicated by James’s own indictment in a mortgage fraud case in Virginia, where she faces charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

James argues that the DOJ’s subpoenas represent an overreach by the executive branch, alleging retaliation against her office. In her motion, she raised concerns about state sovereignty and the legitimacy of the acting U.S. Attorney’s appointment.

In a *motion dated October 15*, James’s attorneys contended that Trump did not pursue claims of “selective prosecution, retaliation, and bad faith” during his previous legal challenges. They argued that since Trump has returned to the White House and placed his personal lawyers in high positions within the DOJ, he is misusing federal power to target her office.

“This transformation of a personal grievance into a federal criminal prosecution is a calculated campaign to harass a law enforcement agency that held Mr. Trump accountable,” the attorneys asserted in their unsealed filing.

James initiated legal action against Trump in 2022, alleging he inflated his assets to secure favorable loans. In February 2024, she won a civil fraud judgment against him for $454 million. However, a New York appeals court later deemed the penalty excessive, while still affirming that Trump committed fraud.

The DOJ’s case against James leans heavily on a dissenting opinion from a judge who suggested political motives behind her actions. In response, James’s legal team argued that the dissenting opinion alone does not warrant a subpoena and called into question the legitimacy of the acting U.S. Attorney’s appointment.

“The Executive Branch has repeatedly endeavored to give handpicked lawyers the vast powers of U.S. Attorneys without the inconvenience of Senate confirmation,” her attorneys wrote. They insisted that Congress designed a specific process for such appointments that should not be bypassed.

James is also seeking to dismiss her mortgage fraud charges in Virginia by challenging the appointment of Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan. Halligan, who was appointed by Trump shortly before indicting former FBI Director James Comey for allegedly lying to Congress, faces scrutiny as these legal battles unfold.

As this situation develops, the implications of James’s challenges against the DOJ and the broader legal landscape surrounding Trump and the NRA continue to capture public attention. The outcome may significantly influence the ongoing political and legal discourse in the United States.