🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of former President Trump secured major legal victories on Monday when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for retaliation.

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

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks the former president will probably come after him once more.

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

But the government faces significant obstacles to effectively try either after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

The government charged James Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

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

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene new grand juries and secure new charges.

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

But 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 Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

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

It could be more difficult for the DOJ 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 him for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

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

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges 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 install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

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

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

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

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

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