🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of former President Trump secured major court wins on Monday when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president is likely to target him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the DOJ faces significant obstacles to effectively try both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the DOJ appeal?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments 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 role in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government charged James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, 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 assemble fresh grand juries and secure new indictments.

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

But 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 Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He described the complex web of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It could be more difficult for the government to try to bring the exact same charges against James Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. However, 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 plans to argue the prosecution is out of time.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to file the charges, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and need Senate approval. US laws regulate how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as outstanding.

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