🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of former President Trump achieved significant legal victories on Monday when a federal judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes the former president is likely to come after him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the last chapter on this issue.

But the government faces steep hurdles to effectively try either after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the DOJ appeal?

The Department of Justice can contest the judge's decision 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, vowing to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

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

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

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government accused Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure a new indictment, stated Professor Levine.

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

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the tangle of attorneys, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his legal team said it intends to contend the prosecution is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

As a result, she lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and require Senate approval. US laws govern how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

The ruling also could raise doubts on other cases Halligan has prosecuted 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 excellent.

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