🔗 Share this article

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

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, saying he believes the former president will probably target him once more.

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

But the government faces significant hurdles to effectively try both after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, 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 federal appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government charged Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and get a fresh indictment, said Ms 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 strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

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

It could be harder for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against James Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

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

But Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.

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