🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of President Trump secured significant legal victories on the start of the week 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 fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

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

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.

But the government confronts significant obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and experts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

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

Each pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both 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 fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a new grand jury and secure a new indictment, said Professor Levine.

But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially in Comey's case.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his legal team said it plans to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on 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 was wrongly appointed.

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

As a result, she lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these laws.

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

The decision might also cast a shadow on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she made her a special US attorney and commended her work as outstanding.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.