🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of President Trump secured 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, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

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

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president is likely to come after him once more.

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

But the government confronts steep obstacles to effectively try both after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the justice department appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US 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 likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

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

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

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

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to contend the government is out of time.

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the AG's effort to install Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

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

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

The decision might also 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 Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as outstanding.

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