🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of President Trump secured major court wins on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

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

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, stating he thinks the former president is likely to target him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this issue.

But the DOJ faces steep hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the DOJ appeal?

The Department of Justice can challenge the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

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

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

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

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially 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 appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He described the tangle of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict him for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it intends to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is void, the time limit 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 charges against James and Comey, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

As a result, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

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

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