🔗 Share this article

Two prominent opponents of former President Trump secured significant court wins on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for retaliation.

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

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, stating he believes Trump is likely to target him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this matter.

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

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department appeal?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would take this route, vowing to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government charged Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

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

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to assemble new grand juries and obtain new charges.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

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

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an charge.

He described the complex web of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It might be more difficult for the DOJ to try to bring the identical accusations against James Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ 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 since the indictment is invalid, the time limit has expired and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.