🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of President Trump achieved major legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, stating he believes Trump is likely to come after him once more.

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

But the government faces steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the DOJ appeal?

The DOJ can challenge the judge's decision 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 available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge 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 present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

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

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

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

It could be harder for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against James Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict him for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it intends to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to install Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

As a result, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

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

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

The administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.