🔗 Share this article

Two prominent opponents of former President Trump secured major legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks Trump is likely to come after him again.

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

But the government faces steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

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

If there is an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

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

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a different grand jury and get a new indictment, stated Professor Levine.

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

I can tell you 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 tangle of lawyers, judges, 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 Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

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

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

The judge stated in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

As a result, she lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be assigned on a interim 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 cast a shadow on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

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

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