🔗 Share this article

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

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments 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 try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president will probably target him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the last chapter on this issue.

But the government faces significant hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and experts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

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

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

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

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially in Comey's case.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the complex web of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the exact same charges against James Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

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

The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is invalid, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no further 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 direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

Therefore, she lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

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

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

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.