Author: Phil Andonian
Recent decisions by grand juries in Washington, D.C., to decline to indict individuals in high-profile federal cases have drawn national attention, and, more quietly, raised serious questions about prosecutorial discretion, the integrity of the grand jury process, and the limits of executive power in federal prosecutions.
While these “no bill” outcomes are not unprecedented, their context and frequency in the current legal climate are worth examining, especially for corporate clients, executives, and referring counsel monitoring federal investigative trends.
What Is a “No Bill”?
When a grand jury returns a “no bill,” it has refused to approve an indictment proposed by the government. Unlike a trial jury, a grand jury operates in secrecy and requires only a majority (not unanimity) to issue an indictment. The government does not need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; it only needs to establish probable cause. That bar is low, which is why most proposed indictments are routinely approved.
So when grand juries return no bills, especially in cases involving federal prosecutors, it signals something unusual; either with the facts presented, the legal theory used, or the perception of fairness in the prosecution itself.
Recent D.C. Grand Jury Pushback
Several recent no bill decisions in D.C. involved federal charges stemming from what has been described as the federalization of local law enforcement. These cases include allegations of threats against political figures and offenses tied to federal executive branch policies. In one example, a woman accused of making threats against former President Trump was twice brought before the grand jury, only to be no-billed both times.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. has reportedly continued to press for indictments in some of these cases even after an initial rejection, prompting legitimate concern from defense attorneys and legal scholars about respect for the grand jury process itself. When prosecutors return to the grand jury repeatedly in search of a different outcome, it raises the specter of overreach.
Prosecutorial Discretion vs. Grand Jury Independence
These cases illuminate a fundamental tension in the criminal justice system: the balance between prosecutorial discretion and grand jury independence. Federal prosecutors have wide latitude in deciding whom to charge and how, but the grand jury is one of the few structural checks on that authority. It was designed, in part, to act as a buffer between the citizen and the state.
When grand juries decline to indict, it may reflect skepticism about the government’s legal theory, concern over selective or politicized enforcement, or doubt about the credibility of the underlying facts. In this light, a no bill is not just a procedural hiccup, it’s a quiet but powerful act of discretion by citizens asked to weigh the legitimacy of government action.
Grand Jury Nullification as a Check on Executive Power
While rarely discussed in formal legal settings, grand jury nullification is emerging as a relevant if unofficial mechanism through which citizens can push back against perceived overreach by prosecutors and, by extension, the executive branch.
Nullification occurs when grand jurors vote not to indict, even when the evidence presented technically supports the charges. Rather than being a rejection of the facts, it is often a statement about the application of the law itself—that pursuing charges under certain statutes, in certain circumstances, would be unjust, disproportionate, or contrary to the public interest.
In that sense, it’s not just a legal decision, but a moral or societal one. Jurors may believe that the law being applied is outdated, politically motivated, or enforced in a way that creates inequality or suppresses dissent. Their refusal to indict becomes a quiet yet deliberate act of discretion, sending a message to prosecutors and policymakers alike.
Though not officially sanctioned or taught, grand jury nullification has historical roots and real consequences. It reflects the foundational role grand juries play in our constitutional system, not merely as procedural gatekeepers, but as a democratic check on prosecutorial and executive power. In an era when high-profile federal prosecutions are increasingly visible and often politically charged, this function takes on renewed importance.
These recent no-bill decisions in D.C. may represent more than case-specific outcomes. While nullification can’t be invoked as a legal defense or strategy, its existence reinforces the idea that legal systems must maintain public trust to remain effective.
What This Means for Business Clients and White-Collar Defendants
For business owners, executives, and professionals facing scrutiny from federal law enforcement, these cases are a reminder of both the risks and the protections built into the system. The grand jury process, although opaque, remains essential and can be a critical turning point in a federal investigation.
If you or your organization are under investigation, or if you’ve received a subpoena, the time to get experienced counsel involved is early before charges are filed. If you’re a lawyer seeking trusted partners for white-collar referrals, know that our Messner Reeves D.C. attorneys are tracking these prosecutorial trends closely and are well-positioned to respond with skill and speed.
For strategic legal guidance in federal investigations, white-collar matters, or complex grand jury proceedings, contact Messner Reeves today.
