🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of former President Trump achieved major court wins on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

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

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

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

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

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department appeal?

The DOJ can contest the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this instance, 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 immediate appeal.

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

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

In the event of an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and secure a new indictment, stated Professor Levine.

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

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 can obtain an charge.

He described the complex web of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the exact same charges against James Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

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

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

The judge stated in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

As a result, she lacked legal power to present the indictment, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, 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 Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she designated her a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

The administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.