🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile critics of President Trump obtained major legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, stating he thinks Trump will probably come after him once more.

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

But the DOJ confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen 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 justice department challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can contest Judge Currie's ruling before a higher appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

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

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

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

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene new grand juries and obtain new charges.

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

But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

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

It might be more difficult for the DOJ to try to bring the exact same charges against James Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it plans to argue the government is out of time.

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

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

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

The decision might also raise doubts on any 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 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.