The failure of another grand jury to indict New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, for bank fraud is a stunning setback — and potentially a fatal one —  for President Trump’s effort to convict one of his most vocal critics. Does the Department of Justice have the determination to convene a fourth grand jury for Ms. James?

The administration’s options for proving Ms. James’s guilt in court, though, are dwindling. A fourth grand jury could yield further negative results, and while there is no law preventing the government from convening an unlimited number of grand juries, that path could be both embarrassing and unproductive. 

Unlike in the case against the former director of the FBI, James Comey, one thing the Department of Justice does not have to worry about is the expiration of the statute of limitations. Though the alleged crimes took place in 2020, bank fraud statutes prescribe a 10-year window within which to bring charges.     

The latest refusal to indict came from a grand jury convened from the citizens of Alexandria, Virginia. This act of defiance comes a week after a Norfolk grand jury performed the same act of refusal. The case against Ms. James was upended last month by  Judge Cameron McGown Currie, an appointee of President Clinton. She ruled that the chief prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, was unlawfully appointed by Attorney General Pam Bondi. 

Judge Currie dismissed the charges against Ms. James and the former director of the FBI, James Comey. Both of those cases were being prosecuted out of the Eastern District of Virginia, where Ms. Halligan is the interim United States attorney. Ms. James was indicted in October on counts of bank fraud and lying to a financial institution, allegations that stem from a $100,000 loan she secured to purchase a modest Norfolk home. 

Prosecutors claim that the terms of the loan stipulated that Ms. James was prohibited from using the house as a rental property, but that she did anyway — and reaped some $18,000 in ill-gotten gains. It is rare for a grand jury to refuse to return an indictment — data suggests that they accede to the wishes of prosecutors more than 90 percent of the time. Contributing to that number is that the defense is not permitted to present to grand juries and unanimity is not required to hand up charges.

Ms. James’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell — who has become ubiquitous in cases challenging the 47th president — declares in a statement after the latest failure to charge that “This case already has been a stain on this department’s reputation and raises troubling questions about its integrity. Any further attempt to revive these discredited charges would be a mockery of our system of justice.”

One judge in the Eastern District, Leonie Brinkema, another appointee of Mr. Clinton’s, told prosecutors in a separate case that the “proper position” would be for Ms. Halligan ro resign now that she has been disqualified pending appeal. Ms. Halligan’s name, though, is still appearing on charging documents. She replaced the previous interim United States attorney, Erik Siebert, who was reportedly reluctant to bring the cases against Ms. James and Mr. Comey. 

Mr. Trump accused Mr. Siebert of saying “there was no case” against Ms. James. The president calls Ms. Halligan, who served as his defense attorney and then on a task force mandated to rid the Smithsonian museums of bias, a “good lawyer.” She has never prosecuted a felony before, though, and even before the case was dismissed her handling of the grand jury came under scrutiny from both Mr. Comey’s defense team and the bench.

Five days before Ms. Halligan was appointed Mr. Trump took to Truth Social in a message addressed to “Pam” — presumably Ms. Bondi — that asked “What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done. We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility.”

Ms. James, an elected Democrat, promised in 2018 to “shine a bright light” into every corner of Mr. Trump’s real estate dealings, and in September of 2023 Judge Arthur Engoron found him liable in a  civil fraud case Ms. James brought against Mr. Trump, his two adult sons, and their family business. The penalty he imposed eventually surged past $500 million, but was vacated on appeal as “excessive” in violation of the Constitution.   

Mr. Trump and his supporters argue that Ms. James’s lawsuit is selective and vindictive and sends a chilling message to anyone considering doing business in New York City. A federal grand jury in upstate New York is currently investigating whether to file civil charges against Ms. James for violating Mr. Trump’s civil rights.