🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of President Trump obtained major legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, saying he believes the former president will probably target him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the final word on this matter.

But the government faces steep hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and experts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Could the justice department appeal?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and obtain new charges.

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

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in the Comey matter.

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

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It could be harder for the government to try to file the exact same charges against Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict him for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it plans to contend the government is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is invalid, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against James and Comey, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

Therefore, she lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.

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

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

The ruling also could raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

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

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.