🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent critics of former President Trump achieved major court wins on Monday when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, saying he thinks Trump will probably target him once more.

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

But the government faces significant obstacles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the justice department appeal?

The DOJ can challenge the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would pursue this option, pledging to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the tangle of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to bring the exact same charges against Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it intends to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is void, the time limit has expired and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the AG's effort to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she made her a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as outstanding.

The administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.