🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of former President Trump achieved major court wins on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director 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 targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, saying he believes Trump is likely to come after him again.

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

But the DOJ faces steep obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, 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 requests up to the US 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 probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to assemble new grand juries and obtain new indictments.

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

But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – 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 charge.

He described the complex web of lawyers, judges, and legal filings 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 statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict him for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said 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.

The judge stated 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, she lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

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

The decision might also cast a shadow on any other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

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

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