🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of President Trump secured significant legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes Trump is likely to target him once more.

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

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

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

Might the DOJ appeal?

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

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 former 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, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new grand jury and secure a new indictment, said Professor Levine.

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

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the tangle of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it plans to contend the government is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James ruling that the AG's effort to install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

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

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

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

The ruling also could cast a shadow on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

But Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as outstanding.

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