🔗 Share this article

Two prominent critics of President Trump secured major court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

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

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

But the DOJ faces significant hurdles to effectively try either after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can challenge Judge Currie's ruling before a higher 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 available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

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 lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

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

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

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new grand jury and get a new indictment, stated Professor Levine.

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

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

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

It could be harder for the DOJ to try to file the exact same charges against Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

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

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she made her a special US attorney and commended her work as outstanding.

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