🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of President Trump achieved significant court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, saying he thinks the former president will probably target him again.

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

But the government confronts steep hurdles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the DOJ appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

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

If there is an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to assemble fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different 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 complicated path – especially in Comey's case.

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He described the complex web of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It might be harder for the government to try to file the exact same charges against James Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict 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 bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it intends to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

As a result, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

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

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

The administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.