🔗 Share this article

Two well-known critics of former President Trump achieved major legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes Trump will probably come after him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the last chapter on this issue.

But the government confronts significant hurdles to effectively try either after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

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

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government accused James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and get a new indictment, stated 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 Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

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

It might be harder for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict him for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it plans to contend the government is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

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

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

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