🔗 Share this article

Two well-known critics of former President Trump secured significant court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the government to refile the case.

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

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, saying he believes Trump is likely to come after him again.

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

But the government confronts significant hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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 indicated she would pursue this option, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

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

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 lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

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

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is invalid, the time limit has expired and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James ruling that the AG's effort to install Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

Therefore, she lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

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

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as outstanding.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.