🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent critics of former President Trump achieved significant court wins on Monday when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for retaliation.

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

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, stating he believes the former president is likely to come after him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the final word on this matter.

But the DOJ faces steep obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can challenge the judge's decision before a higher appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

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

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

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could present James's case to a new grand jury and secure a new indictment, said Ms 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 hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

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

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict him for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

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

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James decision that the AG's effort to appoint Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

As a result, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

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

The ruling also could cast a shadow on any other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

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

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.