🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of former President Trump obtained significant legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the government to try again.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, stating he believes Trump is likely to target him again.

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

But the DOJ faces steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department appeal?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

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

Could there be new charges?

The government accused James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to convene new grand juries and obtain new charges.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Professor Levine.

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – 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 indictment.

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, 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.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

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

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the AG's effort to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

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

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

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

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

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