🔗 Share this article

Two prominent critics of former President Trump secured significant legal victories on Monday when a US 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 maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president is likely to come after him again.

And White House spokeswoman 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 setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could occur 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.

Might the justice department appeal?

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

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

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

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

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

Could there be new charges?

The government accused James Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

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

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, 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 lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

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

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

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

The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the AG's effort to appoint 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.

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

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

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

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.