🔗 Share this article

Two well-known critics of former President Trump secured significant court wins on Monday when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges 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 try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

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

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this issue.

But the government faces steep obstacles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the justice department 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 Appeals Court.

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

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

In the event of 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 new charges?

The government accused Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to assemble new grand juries and obtain new charges.

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

But legal expert 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 lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

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

It could be more difficult for the government to try to file the exact same charges against Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

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

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James decision that the AG's effort to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, she wrote.

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

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special US attorney and praised her work as outstanding.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.