🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of President Trump secured major legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges 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 thinks the former president will probably target him again.

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

But the government confronts significant obstacles to effectively try both after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ appeal?

The Department of Justice can contest Judge Currie's ruling before a higher appeals court. In this case, 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 Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be targets 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 indictments.

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Professor Levine.

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in Comey's case.

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

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

Still in that situation, his legal team said it plans to contend the government is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is void, 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 the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, the judge 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 Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

Therefore, she lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.

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

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

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

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

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