🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of former President Trump secured major legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

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

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

But the DOJ confronts steep hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and experts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department appeal?

The DOJ can challenge the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

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

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

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

It might be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it plans to contend the government is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is void, the time limit has expired and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against James and Comey, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

The judge stated in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the president and require Senate approval. US laws govern how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she made her a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as outstanding.

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