🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent critics of former President Trump secured significant court wins on Monday when a US judge threw out the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks Trump is likely to come after him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the last chapter on this issue.

But the DOJ faces steep obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would take this route, pledging to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeals process, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

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

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the complex web of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It might be more difficult for the government to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

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

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie 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 Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

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

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and require Senate approval. US laws govern how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

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

The decision might also cast a shadow on any other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

But Bondi said on that day that she designated her a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as excellent.

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