🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of President Trump secured significant legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, stating he believes the former president 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 DOJ faces steep obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the justice department appeal?

The DOJ can challenge Judge Currie's ruling before a higher appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government accused James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to convene fresh grand juries and secure new indictments.

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

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

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

He described the complex web of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger 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 statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority 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 assignment had breached these regulations.

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

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

But Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

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