A New York judge heard arguments on Thursday, October 29, 2026, regarding a request to remove Attorney General Letitia James (D) from a criminal investigation into gang rape allegations at Cornell University. The challenge was brought by a man named in a related civil lawsuit, whose attorneys argued that James’ social media activity demonstrates bias.
The investigation concerns a September 2024 incident where a former student, identified as Jane Doe, alleged she was drugged with ketamine and raped by several men at a fraternity party. A county district attorney initially declined to bring charges in 2024, but Governor Kathy Hochul appointed James as a special prosecutor on October 1, 2026, seeking an objective review of the case.
Attorneys for the accused man cited a September 28 post where James described the allegations as "horrific and unacceptable" and referred to the accuser as a "survivor." Lawyer Stuart Bernstein stated that James had "shown she is not objective," while defense attorney Andrew Miltenberg suggested other retired judges or district attorneys should handle the probe. James, who did not attend the hearing, previously stated during an October 8 debate that her comments "demonstrate empathy" and that her office would be guided solely by facts and law.
Judge James R. Farrell questioned the propriety of a prosecutor making such statements but did not issue an immediate ruling. Assistant Attorney General Kaitlin Vigars argued that disqualification requires "actual prejudice," noting that no criminal charges have been filed. The judge granted the man’s legal team one week to explain why other defendants named in the civil lawsuit had not joined the effort to remove the attorney general.
The ruling will impact the legal rights of the men accused in the civil suit and the former student seeking criminal prosecution. While the exact number of people affected is limited to the individuals involved in the 2024 incident, the legal standard for "actual prejudice" established here could influence future efforts to disqualify prosecutors based on public statements. A decision favoring the defendant would signal that a prosecutor’s public expressions of empathy for a complainant are grounds for removal, whereas a ruling for the state would affirm the governor's broad authority to appoint special prosecutors regardless of their public commentary.
What happens next depends on the filings due by November 5, 2026. Judge Farrell must decide whether James’ social media posts constitute enough bias to compromise the "objective review" mandated by Governor Hochul. A separate legal action seeking to undo James' appointment is also pending in Ithaca, though no hearing date has been set for that case. The criminal investigation remains ongoing, and state lawyers noted it is currently uncertain whether any charges will eventually be brought against the men involved.