🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of former President Trump obtained significant court wins on Monday when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, stating he thinks Trump will probably target him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this issue.

But the government faces steep obstacles to effectively try both after this defeat, and experts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US 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 lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

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

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It could be harder for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge him for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to contend the government is out of time.

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

The ruling also could raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

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

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