🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile opponents of President Trump obtained significant court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, 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 merely targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, stating he believes Trump is likely to target him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the DOJ confronts steep obstacles to effectively try both after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, said Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can challenge Judge Currie's ruling 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 pursue this option, pledging to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions 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 appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Each pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

But John Day, head 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 charge.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it intends to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and need Senate approval. US laws govern how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

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

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

But Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as excellent.

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