🔗 Share this article

Two prominent critics of former President Trump obtained significant court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for retaliation.

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

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, saying he believes Trump will probably target him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the last chapter on this matter.

But the government confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the justice department appeal?

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

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

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

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

If there is an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government accused James Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – 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 appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

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

It could be harder for the DOJ to try to file the exact same charges against Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it plans to argue the government 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 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 Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and require Senate approval. US laws regulate how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated 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.