🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile critics of former President Trump secured significant court wins on Monday when a US judge threw out the federal indictments against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks Trump will probably target him again.

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

But the government confronts significant obstacles to effectively try either after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the justice department appeal?

The DOJ can contest the judge's decision before a higher appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

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

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

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, stated Professor Levine.

But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

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

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it plans to argue the government is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is void, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

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

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she made Halligan a special US attorney and praised her work as outstanding.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.