New York Attorney General Letitia James is pushing back against federal mortgage fraud charges brought by the Trump administration, calling the case “vindictive” and politically motivated in a motion filed Friday in federal court. James argues that the prosecution stems directly from President Trump’s animus against her, following years of public disputes and her office’s aggressive legal actions targeting Trump’s businesses.
Motion to Dismiss: Political Motives at the Center
In a detailed 50-page filing, James’ legal team contends the indictment is a result of selective and retaliatory prosecution. The motion cites numerous derogatory statements by Trump, ranging from “crooked” to “monster,” as evidence that the prosecution is intended to punish James for her outspoken criticism and for enforcing her duties as New York’s attorney general.
The document argues that other public officials accused of similar behavior have not faced charges, describing a pattern of targeting Trump’s political opponents while ignoring allies and administration members accused of comparable misconduct. James’ attorneys claim the case violates constitutional protections and should be thrown out for “outrageously unconstitutional” motives.
The Background Charges for Letitia James
Letitia James was indicted for allegedly making false statements on mortgage papers to obtain favorable loan terms when purchasing a home in Norfolk, Virginia. She pleaded not guilty last month and stated outside the courthouse that the justice system was being weaponized as a “tool of revenge” by the Trump administration. The charges come amid a broader wave of prosecutions targeting Trump critics, including former FBI Director James Comey and ex-national security adviser John Bolton.
Letitia James is the first woman elected as New York attorney general and gained national attention for securing a $355 million judgment against Trump and his companies for civil fraud, a fine later overturned but the underlying finding of fraud upheld.
What Comes Next
The case is fueling debates about political retribution and judicial independence. Legal experts say it could set major precedents for how administrations pursue criminal cases against political rivals. Oral arguments for the dismissal motion are expected next month, as James’ team pushes to have the charges dropped and raises broader questions about the separation of powers and prosecutorial ethics in federal courts.