🔗 Share this article

Two well-known opponents of former President Trump achieved significant legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, 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 US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, saying he thinks the former president is likely to target him again.

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

But the government faces significant obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

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

Could there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, 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 assemble new grand juries and secure new indictments.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure a new indictment, said Ms Levine.

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

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He described the complex web of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It could be more difficult for the DOJ 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 him for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

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

The decision further indicates that because the charge is invalid, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on 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 install Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

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

US attorneys are proposed by the president and need Senate approval. US laws regulate how people can be assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

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

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

But Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.