🔗 Share this article

Two prominent opponents of former President Trump secured significant court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

For 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 president and justice department are simply targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

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

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the final word on this issue.

But the government confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to forecast 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.

Could the justice department appeal?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would pursue this option, vowing to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new charges.

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

But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

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

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict him for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to argue the prosecution is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is invalid, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James ruling that the AG's effort to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

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

But Bondi said on Monday 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.