New York Attorney General Letitia James appears at a joint press briefing with Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Gov. Kathy Hochul, elected officials and activists opposing federal ICE overreach at the governor’s office in New York, NY, on Aug. 12, 2026. (Photo by Lev Radin/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images).
A federal judge in New York handed Attorney General Letitia James a significant win Thursday, throwing out a lawsuit filed by a far-right, anti-immigrant website that claimed her office had targeted it in retaliation.
In a 26-page memorandum decision and order, U.S. District Judge Mae D’Agostino, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, dismissed the case in its entirety. The judge found that the lawsuit improperly asked a federal court to step into an ongoing state law enforcement matter, warranting dismissal under the Younger abstention doctrine.
“Simply put, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief that would cause this Court to interfere with the ongoing Civil Enforcement Action,” D’Agostino wrote in the opinion.
The VDARE Foundation filed the federal lawsuit in June 2025 in the Northern District of New York, accusing James’ office of violating the First Amendment and equal protection principles. The claims centered on subpoenas seeking records related to the group’s finances, corporate governance and regulatory compliance.
“VDARE engages in political speech at the very heart of First Amendment protection: it criticizes government policy that appears to demonstrate incompetence and even outright dishonesty,” the complaint said. “James and the several attorneys in her office seek to crush this criticism through the abuse of state power.”
The organization later sought a temporary restraining order in December 2025, asking the district court to effectively block James from pursuing regulatory action against VDARE while the federal case moved forward. That request came after James filed a state civil enforcement action in September 2025 accusing VDARE’s owners of draining the organization’s corporate assets and misusing donor money to purchase a castle in West Virginia.
One day after VDARE sought injunctive relief, D’Agostino rejected its request for expedited consideration.
The judge also cautioned VDARE that several legal doctrines appeared likely to undermine its case, noting that “both the subpoenas at issue and the enforcement proceeding are akin to a criminal prosecution.”
Still, D’Agostino allowed the litigation to proceed at that stage and authorized James and her office to submit a combined motion to dismiss the complaint and oppose VDARE’s request for an injunction.
James filed that 38-page omnibus motion in January.
“This action asserts constitutional claims of retaliation, selective enforcement, and conspiracy against Defendants following [the attorney general’s] lawful investigation of, and subsequent legal action initiated against, VDARE,” the motion to dismiss stated.
To hear James tell it, VDARE was aiming for “a third bite at the apple on the matter of retaliatory animus and targeting” after previously suing and losing to James in federal court in 2022 and unsuccessfully challenging subpoenas in Empire State court in 2024.
Now, D’Agostino has decided the issues emphatically in James’ favor.
“In sum, the Civil Enforcement Action was initiated to sanction Plaintiff,” the order reads. “Defendant James initiated the action pursuant to her statutory authority (as the Attorney General routinely does), and there was an investigation which culminated in the filing of the formal complaint in the Civil Enforcement Action.”
The judge says a federal “[i]ntrusion” into the state’s efforts “unduly interferes” with “legitimate activities” and can also “readily be interpreted as reflecting negatively upon the state courts’ ability to enforce constitutional principles.”
The court also had harsh words for VDARE’s arguments, calling them “both factually incorrect and legally meritless.”
Specifically, D’Agostino chastises the group for how its complaint “broadly alleges injuries suffered as a result of a conspiracy-laced investigation and abuse of process.”
But ultimately, none of the merits arguments mattered — except insofar as what those arguments concern at a basic level.
And, to that end, the judge saw no reason to give VDARE a chance to make better arguments.
“Because the defects in Plaintiff’s complaint—i.e. that Plaintiff improperly seeks this Court’s intervention in ongoing state court proceedings—cannot be cured with an amendment, the Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend,” the opinion goes on.
The post Letitia James beats ‘factually incorrect and legally meritless’ challenge from far-right website over civil enforcement subpoenas and alleged administrative harassment first appeared on Law & Crime.
