🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of former President Trump secured major court wins on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility 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 tainted the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, saying he believes the former president is likely to come after him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this issue.

But the government confronts steep hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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 indicated she would pursue this option, pledging to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the Trump 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, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

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

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to assemble new grand juries and secure new indictments.

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new grand jury and get 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.

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it intends to contend the government is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said 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's appointment was improper.

The judge stated in the James ruling that the AG's effort to appoint Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

The decision might also raise doubts on other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

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

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