🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent critics of former President Trump obtained significant legal victories on Monday 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 fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, stating he believes the former president will probably come after him once more.

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

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

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed 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, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

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

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

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 statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict him for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to contend the government is out of time.

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

What happens to 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 Attorney General's attempt to appoint Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

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

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

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday 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 the press on Monday.