🔗 Share this article

Two prominent critics of former President Trump obtained major legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are simply targeting 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 open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

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

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president is likely to 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 confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can contest Judge Currie's ruling before a federal appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

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

If there is an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government accused James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could present James's case to a new grand jury and secure a new indictment, said Professor Levine.

But John Day, head 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 hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

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

It could be harder for the government to try to file the identical accusations against James Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict him for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

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

The decision further indicates that because the charge is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

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

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

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

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

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

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