🔗 Share this article

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

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, saying he thinks the former president is likely to come after him again.

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

But the DOJ confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can challenge Judge Currie's ruling before a higher appeals court. In this instance, 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 expedited appeal.

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

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

If there is an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

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

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

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 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.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

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

It might be harder for the government to try to bring the exact same charges against James Comey.

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

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it plans to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is void, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

As a result, she lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she designated her a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as outstanding.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.