🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of President Trump obtained significant court wins on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

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

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, saying he believes the former president is likely to target him again.

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

But the DOJ faces significant hurdles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, pledging to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

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

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

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to 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 DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Professor Levine.

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

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

He described the tangle of lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It might be harder for the government to try to bring the identical accusations 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 expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that since the charge is invalid, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further 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 blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

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

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

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

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

The White House maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.