The last year has seen an unprecedented stress test for the American rule of law. While much of the public discourse has focused on the targeting of political rivals for criminal prosecution — facts and evidence notwithstanding — a less noticed but equally vital shift is occurring. Federal grand juries and trial juries are exercising a renewed sense of independence, serving as a critical check on perceived abuses in the criminal justice system.

For decades, the grand jury “no bill” was a statistical unicorn. Because evidence is presented solely by a prosecutor without a defense presence, the prevailing wisdom held that a prosecutor could “indict a ham sandwich.” That era appears to be closing.

In some of the most publicized instances of the last year, federal grand juries in Virginia have refused to indict the attorney general of New York for alleged mortgage fraud — not once, but twice — despite prosecutors’ “forum shopping” across different districts in the state. More recently, a federal grand jury in Washington rejected an indictment sought against six Democratic members of Congress who had posted a video advising active-duty troops of their right to refuse illegal orders.

Data from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ Criminal Case Tracker reveals that these are not isolated incidents. Numerous grand juries nationwide are refusing to approve felony charges presented by federal prosecutors. However, the documented number of “no bills” likely represents only the tip of the iceberg, as prosecutors in several high-volume districts have reportedly delayed notifying courts of these decisions or are actively attempting to bypass reporting requirements.

The “juror rebellion” extends to the trial phase as well. Faced with what many perceive as over-charging, trial juries are returning “not guilty” verdicts at an unprecedented rate. For instance, after a grand jury refused to indict Shawn Charles Dunn for a felony, prosecutors in D.C. used their authority to charge him with misdemeanor assault for throwing a Subway sandwich at a federal agent. A jury acquitted him promptly.

This trend is particularly acute in the West. Juries in Los Angeles have acquitted defendants in every single case involving charges of interfering with or assaulting federal officers that proceeded to trial in 2025 and early 2026.

Furthermore, the speed of these deliberations signals a profound skepticism of the government’s theories. In a recent case where a homeless man was charged with a felony for shining a toy key-ring laser near Marine One, the jury returned a “not guilty” verdict in 35 minutes.

The Founders embedded the grand jury and the petit jury into the Bill of Rights precisely for this reason. They viewed the concurrence of impartial citizens — drawn from all races, ages and political backgrounds — as the ultimate safeguard against a government misusing the criminal law.

While the use of the justice system to punish political enemies remains a dark chapter, the “silver lining” is the reawakening of “the people.” This trend is not a legal quirk; it is a restoration of the jury’s role as the final bulwark of liberty. This awakening should be celebrated by those on both sides of the aisle who value the rule of law over the rule of any single administration.

_____

ABOUT THE WRITER

Abbe David Lowell represents several individuals who have been targeted in recent federal probes, including those whom grand juries have refused to indict. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.

Steven Salky is an attorney and the creator of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ Criminal Case Tracker. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.

_____

©2026 Tribune Content Agency, LLC