🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent critics of former President Trump secured 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, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, saying he thinks the former president will probably target him once more.

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

But the government confronts significant hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the justice department 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, pledging to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

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

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

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

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to convene fresh grand juries and obtain new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and get a new indictment, stated Ms Levine.

But John Day, president 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 assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

Still 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 invalid, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the AG's effort to appoint Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and need Senate approval. US laws regulate how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

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

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

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

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