🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of President Trump secured major court wins on Monday when a US judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, saying he thinks the former president is likely to target him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.

But the DOJ confronts significant obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would pursue this option, pledging to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

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

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government charged James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new charges.

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

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

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge him for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to argue the government is out of time.

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against James and Comey, the judge was blunt: 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 Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

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

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

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

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

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

The White House maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.