🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of former President Trump obtained major legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the government to try again.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, saying he believes the former president will probably come after him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.

But the DOJ faces significant obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the justice department appeal?

The DOJ can challenge Judge Currie's ruling before a higher appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, vowing to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to assemble new grand juries and obtain new indictments.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is able to secure an charge.

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It could be more difficult for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it intends to contend the government is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that because the charge is invalid, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against James and Comey, the judge was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to install Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

The decision might also raise doubts on other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated Halligan a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as outstanding.

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.