🔗 Share this article

Two prominent opponents of President Trump achieved significant legal victories on Monday when a US judge threw out the federal indictments 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 not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

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

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

But the government confronts significant obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department appeal?

The Department of Justice can contest Judge Currie's ruling 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 take this route, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

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

Could there be new charges?

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

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

But John Day, president 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 re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It could be more difficult for the government to try to bring the exact same charges against James Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ 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 ruling also suggests that because the indictment is invalid, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

US attorneys are proposed by the president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

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

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

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