🔗 Share this article

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

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, saying he believes Trump will probably come after him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the last chapter on this issue.

But the DOJ confronts steep hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and experts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.

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

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

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

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

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

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: 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 invalid.

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

US attorneys are proposed by the president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

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

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

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