🔗 Share this article

Two well-known critics of former President Trump obtained significant legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the federal indictments against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for revenge.

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

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, saying he thinks the former president will probably target him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.

But the government faces significant hurdles to effectively try either after this setback, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, stated Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ appeal?

The DOJ can contest the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

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

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government accused Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different 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 complicated path – especially in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, 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 tangle of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It might be more difficult 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 indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired 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 situation, his lawyers said it intends to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that because the charge is void, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

Therefore, she lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special US attorney and praised her work as outstanding.

The administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.