🔗 Share this article

Two prominent opponents of former President Trump achieved major legal victories on Monday when a US judge threw out the federal indictments against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, stating he believes Trump is likely to target him again.

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

But the DOJ faces steep hurdles to effectively try both after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department appeal?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would pursue this option, pledging to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

The government accused James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in Comey's case.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

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

It could be harder for the government to try to bring the exact same charges against Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it plans to argue the government is past the deadline.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how individuals 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 subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

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

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

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