🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile opponents of President Trump achieved major court wins on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

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

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

But the government faces significant hurdles to effectively try either after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the justice department appeal?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeals process, the justice department probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

The government accused Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and secure a new indictment, said Ms Levine.

But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor 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 harder for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers 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 bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to contend the government is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the AG's effort to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

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

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

This makes 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 Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

But Bondi said on that day that she designated her a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.