🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of former President Trump secured major legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

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

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the government faces significant hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could occur 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 Judge Currie's ruling before a federal appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

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

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to convene new 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, stated Ms 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 hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

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

It could be harder for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against James Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict him for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it plans to contend the government is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that because the charge is invalid, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

Therefore, she lacked legal power 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 assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, 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 Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and praised her work as outstanding.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.