🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of President Trump secured major court wins on Monday when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

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

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, stating he believes Trump is likely to target him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the last chapter on this issue.

But the government confronts significant obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department appeal?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, vowing to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they 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 assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

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

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in Comey's case.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, courts, and motions 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.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

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

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the AG's effort to install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

Therefore, she lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the president and require Senate approval. US laws regulate how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

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

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

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