🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent critics of President Trump obtained significant court wins on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, stating he believes Trump is likely to come after him again.

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

But the DOJ confronts significant hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department appeal?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, pledging to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

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

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

He characterized the complex web of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to argue 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, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against James and Comey, the judge was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

The judge stated in the James ruling that the AG's effort to install 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.

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

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

The decision might also raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

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

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