🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile critics of President Trump achieved significant legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, saying he believes the former president is likely to target him again.

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

But the government confronts significant obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, 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 instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

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

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

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to convene fresh grand juries and secure new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could bring James' 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 complicated path – especially in Comey's case.

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

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

It might 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 deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end 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 past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that because the indictment is void, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

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 invalid.

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

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

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

The decision might also raise doubts on other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated Halligan a special federal prosecutor 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.