🔗 Share this article

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

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president is likely to target him again.

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

But the government confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and experts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, pledging to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a new 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 – especially in Comey's case.

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 able to secure an charge.

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It might be more difficult for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to argue the government is past the deadline.

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

As a result, she lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

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

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

But Bondi said on that day that she made her a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as excellent.

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