🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of former President Trump achieved major legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks the former president will probably target him once more.

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

But the government faces significant obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

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

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, 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 assemble new grand juries and secure new indictments.

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

But legal expert John Day, president 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 hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the tangle of lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

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

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is void, the statute of limitations 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 charges against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

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

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

The ruling also could raise doubts on other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

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

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