🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile critics of former President Trump secured significant court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, stating he believes Trump is likely to target him once more.

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

But the DOJ faces steep hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the justice department appeal?

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

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

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government charged James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

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

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

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in Comey's case.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

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

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

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

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

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

The White House maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.