🔗 Share this article

Two well-known opponents of former President Trump achieved major legal victories on Monday when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for revenge.

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 the door open for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

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

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

But the government faces significant hurdles to successfully prosecute either 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 uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

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

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the DOJ likely 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 government charged Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to convene fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a new grand jury and get a new indictment, stated Professor Levine.

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially in Comey's case.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He described the tangle of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it intends to contend the government is out of time.

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

As a result, she lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the president and require Senate approval. US laws govern how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

This makes Halligan's role on future 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 Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she made Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as outstanding.

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