🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile opponents of former President Trump secured major legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

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

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this issue.

But the government faces steep obstacles to effectively try either after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled 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 trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

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

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

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government accused James Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

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

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

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different 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 complex process – certainly in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the complex web of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it intends to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

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

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

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she made Halligan a special US attorney and praised her work as outstanding.

The administration maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.