🔗 Share this article

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

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for retaliation.

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

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks Trump is likely to come after him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the final word on this matter.

But the DOJ confronts significant hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the justice department appeal?

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

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

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges 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 involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

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

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure a new 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.

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

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It might be harder for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, 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 intends to contend the government is past the deadline.

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

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

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

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

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

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

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.