🔗 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 filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for retaliation.

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

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, stating he believes the former president is likely to target him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the final word on this issue.

But the DOJ confronts steep hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

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

Could there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene new grand juries and secure 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 fresh indictment, stated Professor Levine.

But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether 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 attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it intends to argue the government is out of time.

The decision further indicates that because the indictment is void, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and require US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

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

But Bondi said on that day that she made her a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.

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