🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent critics of President Trump achieved major legal victories on Monday when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

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

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, saying he thinks Trump will probably target him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the last chapter on this issue.

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

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

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

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

If there is an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to convene new grand juries and secure new charges.

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

But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is able to secure an charge.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It might be more difficult for the government to try to bring the exact same charges against James Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge him for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

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

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is void, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and require Senate approval. US laws govern how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

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

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

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.