🔗 Share this article

Two prominent critics of former President Trump secured significant legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the government to try again.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

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

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

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

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

Could the justice department appeal?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, vowing to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government accused Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to convene new grand juries and obtain new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Professor Levine.

But John Day, head 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 strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

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

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

Still in that case, his legal team said it plans to argue the prosecution is out of time.

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and need Senate approval. US laws regulate how people can be appointed 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 James and Comey, again, unclear.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she designated her a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.