New York Times: judges resist DOJ

Published May 27, 2026 by The Daily Scout

- The New York Times reported on May 26 that federal judges and grand juries are increasingly resisting Justice Department requests in Trump-era prosecutions. - Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered notice of failed indictments after Jeanine Pirro's office could not secure charges against six lawmakers. - The Times article was published May 26; Boasberg's 120-day D.C. policy remains a concrete next procedural marker.

Why it matters

The New York Times reported on May 26 that federal judges and grand juries are increasingly refusing or questioning Justice Department requests tied to criminal cases pushed during President Donald Trump’s second term. The paper said the resistance has appeared in grand jury rooms, where prosecutors seek indictments, and in courtrooms, where judges decide whether subpoenas, warrants and charges can proceed. The article framed the pattern as a loss of confidence in the department as Trump uses it against political adversaries, according to the Times. March 17 brought one of the clearest public signs of that strain. NBC News reported that Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington ordered that judges be notified whenever a grand jury declines to indict in a case that began as a grand jury investigation. Boasberg said the policy would last 120 days and could become permanent. (nytimes.com) ### Why would a judge need to be told when a grand jury says no? James Boasberg issued the order after a federal grand jury rejected an effort by the office of interim U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro to indict six Democratic lawmakers, NBC reported. The lawmakers had appeared in a social media video advising military and intelligence officials not to obey illegal orders. President Donald Trump had called their conduct “seditious behavior” and said they should be arrested and tried, according to NBC. (nbcnews.com) Boasberg wrote that notice was required “in furtherance of the interests of consistency and transparency,” NBC reported. His order said the grand jury foreperson must report the lack of concurrence to the duty magistrate judge under seal, even if prosecutors later drop the case. ### How unusual is grand jury resistance in federal cases? (nbcnews.com) January reporting from Politico described grand juries as a growing obstacle for prosecutors advancing Trump priorities. Federal grand juries need only a majority of 16 to 23 members to approve an indictment, and the standard is probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Even so, Politico reported that dozens of cases in Washington had ended in “no bills,” meaning no indictment. (nbcnews.com) Politico said grand juries in Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, Alexandria and Norfolk had recently rebuffed federal prosecutors in cases involving former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, people accused of threatening Trump and activists accused of clashes with federal officials. Thaddeus Hoffmeister, a University of Dayton law professor, told Politico that grand juries had effectively been “resurrected.” (politico.com) ### Is this only about indictments, or also about subpoenas? May 12 showed the issue reaching beyond charging decisions. The Committee to Protect Journalists said the Justice Department had issued grand jury subpoenas to Wall Street Journal reporters tied to reporting on the Iran war. CPJ said CNN had reported that Trump ordered acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to pursue the subpoenas. (politico.com) Todd Blanche defended leak prosecutions as an administration priority, writing on X that prosecuting leakers who share secrets with reporters was a priority, according to CPJ. Dow Jones, the Journal’s parent, called the subpoenas “an attack on constitutionally protected newsgathering,” CPJ said. ### What does the Times say is driving the pushback? The New York Times said judges and grand juries have “increasingly lost faith” in the Justice Department as the president uses it to reward allies and target opponents. (cpj.org) That is the core finding in the Times report, and it matches earlier accounts from other outlets describing failed indictments and heightened judicial scrutiny in Trump-backed cases. Kevin Washburn, a University of California, Berkeley law professor, told Politico that grand juries were back “on the radar screen” in a way they had not been for a long time. Liz Oyer, the former U.S. pardon attorney fired by the department in March, told Politico the failed indictments were a reminder that citizens still had power to resist. (nytimes.com) ### What happens next inside the courts? Boasberg’s order set a 120-day window for the new D.C. notification policy, with the possibility that it could be made permanent, NBC reported. That means future failed indictment efforts in Washington could continue to generate sealed notices to judges while the broader fight over Justice Department requests plays out in grand jury rooms and federal court. (nbcnews.com) (politico.com)

Key numbers

The New York Times reported on May 26 that federal judges and grand juries are increasingly resisting Justice Department requests in Trump-era prosecutions.
The Times article was published May 26; Boasberg's 120-day D.C.
The New York Times reported on May 26 that federal judges and grand juries are increasingly refusing or questioning Justice Department requests tied to criminal cases pushed during President Donald Trump’s second term.
March 17 brought one of the clearest public signs of that strain.

What happens next

The New York Times reported on May 26 that federal judges and grand juries are increasingly refusing or questioning Justice Department requests tied to criminal cases pushed during President Donald Trump’s second term.
Boasberg said the policy would last 120 days and could become permanent.
May 12 showed the issue reaching beyond charging decisions.

Sources

Quick answers

What happened in New York Times: judges resist DOJ?

The New York Times reported on May 26 that federal judges and grand juries are increasingly resisting Justice Department requests in Trump-era prosecutions. Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered notice of failed indictments after Jeanine Pirro's office could not secure charges against six lawmakers. The Times article was published May 26; Boasberg's 120-day D.C. policy remains a concrete next procedural marker.

Why does New York Times: judges resist DOJ matter?

The New York Times reported on May 26 that federal judges and grand juries are increasingly refusing or questioning Justice Department requests tied to criminal cases pushed during President Donald Trump’s second term. The paper said the resistance has appeared in grand jury rooms, where prosecutors seek indictments, and in courtrooms, where judges decide whether subpoenas, warrants and charges can proceed. The article framed the pattern as a loss of confidence in the department as Trump uses it against political adversaries, according to the Times. March 17 brought one of the clearest public signs of that strain. NBC News reported that Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington ordered that judges be notified whenever a grand jury declines to indict in a case that began as a grand jury investigation. Boasberg said the policy would last 120 days and could become permanent. (nytimes.com) Why would a judge need to be told when a grand jury says no? James Boasberg issued the order after a federal grand jury rejected an effort by the office of interim U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro to indict six Democratic lawmakers, NBC reported. The lawmakers had appeared in a social media video advising military and intelligence officials not to obey illegal orders. President Donald Trump had called their conduct “seditious behavior” and said they should be arrested and tried, according to NBC. (nbcnews.com) Boasberg wrote that notice was required “in furtherance of the interests of consistency and transparency,” NBC reported. His order said the grand jury foreperson must report the lack of concurrence to the duty magistrate judge under seal, even if prosecutors later drop the case. How unusual is grand jury resistance in federal cases? (nbcnews.com) January reporting from Politico described grand juries as a growing obstacle for prosecutors advancing Trump priorities. Federal grand juries need only a majority of 16 to 23 members to approve an indictment, and the standard is probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Even so, Politico reported that dozens of cases in Washington had ended in “no bills,” meaning no indictment. (nbcnews.com) Politico said grand juries in Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, Alexandria and Norfolk had recently rebuffed federal prosecutors in cases involving former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, people accused of threatening Trump and activists accused of clashes with federal officials. Thaddeus Hoffmeister, a University of Dayton law professor, told Politico that grand juries had effectively been “resurrected.” (politico.com) Is this only about indictments, or also about subpoenas? May 12 showed the issue reaching beyond charging decisions. The Committee to Protect Journalists said the Justice Department had issued grand jury subpoenas to Wall Street Journal reporters tied to reporting on the Iran war. CPJ said CNN had reported that Trump ordered acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to pursue the subpoenas. (politico.com) Todd Blanche defended leak prosecutions as an administration priority, writing on X that prosecuting leakers who share secrets with reporters was a priority, according to CPJ. Dow Jones, the Journal’s parent, called the subpoenas “an attack on constitutionally protected newsgathering,” CPJ said. What does the Times say is driving the pushback? The New York Times said judges and grand juries have “increasingly lost faith” in the Justice Department as the president uses it to reward allies and target opponents. (cpj.org) That is the core finding in the Times report, and it matches earlier accounts from other outlets describing failed indictments and heightened judicial scrutiny in Trump-backed cases. Kevin Washburn, a University of California, Berkeley law professor, told Politico that grand juries were back “on the radar screen” in a way they had not been for a long time. Liz Oyer, the former U.S. pardon attorney fired by the department in March, told Politico the failed indictments were a reminder that citizens still had power to resist. (nytimes.com) What happens next inside the courts? Boasberg’s order set a 120-day window for the new D.C. notification policy, with the possibility that it could be made permanent, NBC reported. That means future failed indictment efforts in Washington could continue to generate sealed notices to judges while the broader fight over Justice Department requests plays out in grand jury rooms and federal court. (nbcnews.com) (politico.com)