🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of President Trump secured major court wins on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, saying he believes the former president is likely to target him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this issue.

But the government confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and experts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, said Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, pledging 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 accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government charged James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to convene new grand juries and secure new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Professor Levine.

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

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

He described the complex web of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It could be harder for the DOJ to try to bring the identical accusations against Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it plans to argue the prosecution is out of time.

The decision further indicates that because the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James ruling that the AG's effort to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and require Senate approval. US laws govern how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

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

But Bondi said on that day that she designated her a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

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