🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of President Trump secured significant court wins on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. 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
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, saying he believes the former president will probably target him once more.

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

But the government faces significant obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can challenge Judge Currie's ruling before a federal appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, vowing to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially 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 appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He described the tangle of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It might be harder for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it intends to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is void, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

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, the judge wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

The decision might also raise doubts on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

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

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