🔗 Share this article

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

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for revenge.

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

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, stating he believes the former president will probably come after him again.

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

But the DOJ faces steep hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can contest Judge Currie's ruling before a federal appeals court. In this instance, 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 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 further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

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

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Professor Levine.

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

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 able to secure an charge.

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

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 charge 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 justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it intends to argue the government is past the deadline.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

US attorneys are proposed by the president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these laws.

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

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

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

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