🔗 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, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for revenge.

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

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

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

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

But the DOJ faces significant hurdles to effectively try both after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department appeal?

The Department of Justice can challenge 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 indicated she would take this route, pledging to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.

Could there be new charges?

The government charged Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

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

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

He described the complex web of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It could be harder for the DOJ to try to file the exact same charges against Comey.

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

Still in that case, his lawyers said it intends to argue the prosecution is out of time.

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against James and Comey, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

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

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and require US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

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

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

But Bondi said on that day that she designated her 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.