🔗 Share this article

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

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, saying he believes the former president will probably target him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the DOJ faces steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

The DOJ 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 indicated she would pursue this option, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

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

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the complex web of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it intends to contend the government is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the AG's effort to appoint Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

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

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

The ruling also could cast a shadow on any other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

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

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