🔗 Share this article

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

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for retaliation.

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

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, stating he believes Trump is likely to come after him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this matter.

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

It feels to me like uncharted territory, said Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the justice department appeal?

The Department of Justice can contest Judge Currie's ruling before a federal appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

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

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

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

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to assemble new grand juries and obtain new charges.

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

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly 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 charge.

He described the tangle of attorneys, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

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

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

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

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is void, the time limit has expired 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 indictments against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and need Senate approval. US laws govern how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

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

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

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

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