🔗 Share this article

Two prominent opponents of former President Trump secured significant legal victories on Monday when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks Trump is likely to target him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the final word on this issue.

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

It feels to me like uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, pledging to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government charged Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly 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 appointed and is able to secure an charge.

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

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the exact same charges against Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to contend the government is out of time.

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

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 Monday that she made her a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.

The administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.