On Friday, New York Attorney General Letitia James initiated a legal move to dismiss the mortgage fraud lawsuit lodged against her by interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan in the Eastern District of Virginia. This motion is a pivotal step in what James contends is an unjust legal battle.

James argues that the lawsuit is a direct attack on her efforts as Attorney General, which involved a comprehensive investigation leading to a civil fraud case against former President Donald Trump and his family business. She maintains that her prosecution is driven by political motives rather than legal merit.

In a detailed 50-page motion to dismiss, James alleges, “The government targeted AG James for prosecution because of the President’s genuine animus towards her protected campaign speech and fulfillment of her statutory obligations as New York Attorney General.” She further argues that the indictment represents a case of “vindictive and selective prosecution” that breaches the Fifth Amendment, urging the court to dismiss the charges permanently due to their unconstitutional nature.

The roots of the civil fraud case trace back to 2019, following testimony from Trump’s former associate, Michael Cohen, before Congress. Under scrutiny from New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Cohen accused the Trump Organization of inflating asset values to insurance entities and hinted at potential irregularities in the company’s tax documents.

After an extended investigation, James, in September 2022, filed a substantial $250 million civil fraud lawsuit against Trump, his children, the Trump Organization, and various high-ranking company officials. This lawsuit marked a significant escalation in the legal challenges faced by the Trump enterprise.

By September 2023, a Manhattan judge ruled that Trump, along with Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and their senior aides, committed fraud. This judgment was based on motions for summary judgment filed by James. As a consequence, the court revoked several licenses that permitted the Trump family to conduct business in New York, delivering a severe financial and operational blow to their enterprise.

A bench trial on the extent of liability was held between October 2023 and January 2024. In February 2024, New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron arrived at a combined civil penalty of some $454 million. The judgment was reversed on appeal in August of this year.

Despite the appellate respite, the 45th and 47th president has been adamant James should find herself in legal jeopardy.

In late November 2024, while still president-elect, Trump, by way of eventual Solicitor General D. John Sauer – asked James to dismiss the civil fraud case.

On Oct. 9, the mortgage fraud indictment was filed.

James, in her motion, puts Trump’s own words – and the words of his allies – at the forefront of her claim that the entirety of the prosecution is the result of “genuine animus towards her exercise of her constitutional and statutory rights.”

“This lawsuit, and AG James’ outspoken criticism of the President, triggered six years of targeted attacks,” the filing goes on. “President Trump and his allies have used every insulting term in their vocabulary to deride AG James and call for criminal penalties in retaliation for the exercise of her rights and fulfillment of her statutory duties to fulfill her obligations as New York state’s attorney general.”

The Empire State’s top law enforcement official points to the timeline of events leading up to the controversial indictment:

Since his second inauguration, the President and his hand-picked Department of Justice officials exhausted every avenue to secure the payback that the President demanded. But even after stripping AG James’ security clearance, creating “working groups” on weaponization to find anything to substantiate a prosecution against her, commencing a five-month investigation, and sending a letter threatening her with prosecution if she failed to resign from her position, AG [Pam] Bondi and Mr. [Ed] Martin could not support a criminal charge. That did not sit well with the President. So the President removed what he viewed as the final roadblock to his plan—interim U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert—and installed his own lawyer, Ms. [Lindsey] Halligan, with the singular mission of churning out indictments against his political enemies. Ms. Halligan promptly obeyed.

In no uncertain terms, the scathing dismissal motion says the “indictment is unconstitutional.”

“The Fifth Amendment prohibits the Executive from abridging free speech, due process, and equal protection by undertaking vindictive or selective prosecutions,” the filing continues. “Because this prosecution violates the Constitution, the Government’s indictment must be dismissed with prejudice.”

The motion goes on to argue that the Trump administration is aware of several “similarly-situated individuals” who have “classified a property as a secondary residence, rather than as an investment property, and whose conduct is known to DOJ and/or widely reported, but who were not investigated or charged” and are also in regulatory or law enforcement roles. Those individuals, James says, include high-profile Republican elected officials and members of the Trump administration. But, James says, despite referrals for their prosecution, the president and his aforementioned allies “have been uncharacteristically silent on all of these instances of possible fraud.”

The dismissal bid continues on to argue that the charges against James evidence “discriminatory intent.” This conclusion, according to the filing, is supported by “six years of attacks, animus, and retaliatory actions for her protected speech and activities.”

The filing, while also asking for discovery in the alternative, says the current iteration of the DOJ under Trump is simply too compromised to keep the case against James alive.

From the motion, again, at length:

The Government’s conduct here has offended the very core of due process and equal protection principles in transforming the Department of Justice into the President’s personal agents of revenge. At every stage of the investigation and prosecution of AG James, the Government took unprecedented steps to circumvent traditional, constitutional, and statutory guardrails on prosecutorial and investigative power. This misbehavior has gravely prejudiced AG James, as she was charged for exercising her constitutional and statutory rights and without the benefit of a neutral prosecutor. The only remedy that will vindicate AG James’ rights is dismissal with prejudice, as the investigation and the Department of Justice are too tainted with unconstitutional motivation to bring these charges fairly against AG James.