🔗 Share this article

Two well-known critics of President Trump obtained significant court wins on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for revenge.

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

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, stating he thinks Trump is likely to target him once more.

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

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

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

Might the DOJ appeal?

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

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

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

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

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

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 indictment.

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

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it intends to argue the government is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is void, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

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

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

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

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