🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of President Trump obtained major legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

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

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

But the government faces steep obstacles to effectively try both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would take this route, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeals process, the justice department probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Ms Levine.

But legal expert John Day, head 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 strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

Still in that case, his legal team said it plans to argue the government is past the deadline.

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against James and Comey, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

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

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.