🔗 Share this article

Two prominent opponents of former President Trump secured major legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she 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 government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

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

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the government confronts steep obstacles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the DOJ appeal?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, vowing to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

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

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and secure new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, stated Professor Levine.

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in Comey's case.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It might be more difficult for the government to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict him for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his legal team said it intends to argue the prosecution is out of time.

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as excellent.

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