Grand Juries and No True Bills: Why DOJ Cases Fail

Reading

Since 2025, the Justice Department has pursued criminal cases against a number of public figures who have clashed with President Donald Trump. Several of those cases have collapsed, and some were stopped at the very first step, when a grand jury refused to approve the charges. This reading explains how grand juries work, what it means when one returns a no true bill, and why supporters and critics of the department interpret these outcomes so differently.

What a grand jury does

The Fifth Amendment requires that serious federal crimes, or felonies, be charged through an indictment issued by a grand jury. Under federal criminal procedure rules, a grand jury has 16 to 23 members, and at least 12 must agree before anyone is charged. A prosecutor presents evidence in secret, with no judge and no defense lawyer in the room. The jurors do not decide guilt. They decide only whether there is probable cause, a reasonable basis to believe that a crime was committed and that the accused committed it.

If the jurors agree, they return a true bill and the case moves forward. If they do not, the result is a no true bill. Because only the prosecution is heard and the standard is low, grand juries have long been described as a rubber stamp. The numbers support that reputation. In 2010, grand juries declined just 11 of roughly 162,000 proposed federal indictments, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics figures cited in a Lawfare analysis. More recent national figures are not published.

The pattern since 2025

The first wave of refusals came in Washington, DC, during the administration’s 2025 federal law enforcement surge. Grand juries there declined to indict in at least seven cases, including a man accused of throwing a sandwich at a federal officer, according to the Washington Examiner. Prosecutors refiled several of these cases as misdemeanors, which do not require a grand jury. Similar refusals followed in Los Angeles and Chicago.

The higher-profile cases followed. Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted in September 2025 on charges of lying to Congress, and New York Attorney General Letitia James was indicted in October 2025 on mortgage-related fraud charges. Both indictments were obtained by Lindsey Halligan, an interim US attorney installed in the Eastern District of Virginia after her predecessor reportedly resisted bringing the cases. In November 2025, a federal judge ruled that Halligan had been unlawfully appointed and dismissed both cases without prejudice. Prosecutors then tried twice to indict James again, and grand juries in Norfolk and Alexandria both declined. Comey faces a different obstacle: the five-year statute of limitations on his 2020 testimony has passed, which may bar new charges. The department appealed the dismissals, and the Fourth Circuit heard arguments in September 2026. This article could not locate a ruling as of October 28.

In February 2026, a DC grand jury declined to indict six Democratic members of Congress over a video telling service members they could refuse illegal orders. Sen. Mark Kelly, one of the six, called the effort “an outrageous abuse of power” by Trump and his allies. The next month, Chief Judge James Boasberg of the federal court in DC temporarily required grand jury forepersons to report every refusal to a judge. DC US Attorney Jeanine Pirro called him an activist judge, Fox News reported.

The latest case involves Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide whose 2022 televised testimony to the House January 6 committee described Trump’s conduct that day in damaging terms. Republican Rep. Barry Loudermilk sent the department a criminal referral in March 2026, accusing her of lying to Congress. Parts of her testimony, including a secondhand account of Trump lunging for a steering wheel, were disputed by other witnesses. On October 27, a DC grand jury declined to indict her, The Washington Post reported. This article could not locate a statement from Hutchinson or her lawyers.

Not every case has failed. Former national security adviser John Bolton, another Trump critic, was indicted on 18 counts involving classified information. In June 2026 he accepted a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to one count, with sentencing set for October 28.

How each side reads the results

The department’s view: Administration officials say they are ending the weaponization of justice they attribute to the previous administration, and that no one should be above the law. Pirro and conservative legal commentators have argued that DC jurors, drawn from a heavily Democratic city, are refusing to indict for political reasons, a form of jury nullification. Pirro called the refusals “the essence of a politicized jury.”

The critics’ view: Critics call the prosecutions lawfare, the use of legal action to punish opponents. They point to career prosecutors who reportedly found the Comey and James cases too weak to bring, and argue that refusals in Virginia, Chicago and Los Angeles cannot be explained by DC politics. Comey and James had also filed motions alleging vindictive prosecution, which were never ruled on because the cases ended first. Lawfare’s analysis argues that grand juries are returning to their role as a check on government power.

What is not known: Grand jury deliberations are secret, so the reasons behind any refusal are inference on both sides. What is documented is that a step once described as a formality has become a real obstacle for the Justice Department.

Glossary

The prosecutor presented the evidence to a grand jury in Washington.
Members of a grand jury are not allowed to discuss the case in public.

The indictment listed two charges against the former official.
An indictment is an accusation, not proof that someone is guilty.

The jurors did not believe there was probable cause to charge her.
Probable cause is a much lower standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

After two days of testimony, the grand jury returned a true bill.
A true bill requires the agreement of at least 12 jurors.

Prosecutors rarely see a no true bill in federal court.
The second grand jury also returned a no true bill.

The prosecutor decided to file a lesser charge instead.
Only the prosecutor presents evidence to a grand jury.

Assaulting a federal officer can be charged as a felony.
A felony conviction can lead to the loss of certain rights.

The charge was reduced to a misdemeanor after the grand jury refused to indict.
A misdemeanor case does not need a grand jury’s approval.

She was named interim US attorney just days before the indictment.
The court ruled that the interim appointment was not lawful.

The judge dismissed the case without prejudice, so prosecutors could try again.
A dismissal without prejudice is not a finding that the defendant is innocent.

The statute of limitations for most federal crimes is five years.
Once the statute of limitations passes, new charges may be impossible.

The defense argued that the charges were a case of vindictive prosecution.
Proving vindictive prosecution in court is very difficult.

Some commentators blamed the refusals on jury nullification.
Judges do not tell jurors about jury nullification.

The committee sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department.
A criminal referral does not require prosecutors to bring charges.

Under the plea agreement, the remaining counts will be dropped.
Most federal cases end with a plea agreement rather than a trial.

Both parties have accused the other of weaponization of the Justice Department.
Officials said they were ending the weaponization of federal law enforcement.

Critics described the investigation as lawfare.
Accusations of lawfare are now common from both left and right.

Grand juries have often been called a rubber stamp for prosecutors.
The committee refused to act as a rubber stamp for the plan.

Discussion Questions

Does your country use grand juries or something similar to decide who is charged with a crime?
Who do you think should decide whether a person is charged: prosecutors, judges or ordinary citizens?
Why do you think grand juries almost always agree with prosecutors?
Is a no true bill a sign that the system is working or that it is breaking down?
Do you find the “politicized jury” argument or the “weak cases” argument more convincing?
Should prosecutors be allowed to present the same case to a new grand jury after a refusal?
Should grand jury proceedings stay secret, or should the public be told more?
Is it fair for jurors to refuse to charge someone because they object to how a law is being used?
Why does the Bolton case matter when judging whether these prosecutions are political?
How might these refusals affect public trust in the Justice Department?
Why are accusations of “weaponization” and “lawfare” so common in US politics today?
Imagine you are a grand juror. What would you need to see before voting to charge a well-known political figure?

No True Bill: Why Grand Juries Are Rejecting DOJ Cases

Reading

What a grand jury does

The pattern since 2025

How each side reads the results

Glossary

Discussion Questions

Related Links

Activities

Leave a Comment Cancel reply