🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of former President Trump obtained major legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed 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 not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

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

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

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, saying he thinks the former president will probably come after him once more.

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

But the DOJ confronts steep obstacles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, vowing to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any further 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 role in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

Each entered not guilty pleas. 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 DOJ might try to assemble new grand juries and secure new charges.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure a new 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 lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

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

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge him for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

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

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

The judge stated in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

As a result, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and require Senate approval. US laws regulate how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

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

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