🔗 Share this article

Two well-known critics of former President Trump obtained major legal victories 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 argued vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper 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 New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks Trump is likely to come after him again.

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

But the government faces significant hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts are reluctant to forecast 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.

Might 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.

Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would take this route, vowing to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

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

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

If there is an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure a new indictment, stated Professor Levine.

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially in Comey's case.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He described the complex web of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

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

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

As a result, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and need Senate approval. US laws govern how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

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

But Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special US attorney and praised her work as outstanding.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.