🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of President Trump secured significant legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

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

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the last chapter on this issue.

But the DOJ faces significant obstacles to effectively try both after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the justice department appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the tangle of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

Still in that situation, his legal team said it plans to argue the government is out of time.

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against James and Comey, the judge was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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.

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, she wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the president and need Senate approval. US laws regulate how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

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

But Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as excellent.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.