🔗 Share this article

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

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, 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 invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she 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 government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

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

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

But the government faces significant obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the justice department 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.

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, vowing to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to convene new grand juries and obtain new charges.

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, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the tangle of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It could be more difficult 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 charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it intends to argue 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 Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against James and Comey, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

As a result, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, 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 interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

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

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

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

The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.