🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of President Trump obtained significant legal victories on Monday when a federal judge threw out 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 president and justice department are merely singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks Trump will probably target him once more.

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

But the DOJ confronts steep hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would pursue this option, pledging to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government charged Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Each pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a new grand jury and get a new indictment, said Ms 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 properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, 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 prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is invalid, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

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

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she made her a special US attorney and commended her work as outstanding.

The administration maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.