🔗 Share this article

Two prominent critics of President Trump secured major legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president will probably target him again.

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

But the government faces significant hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, vowing to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions 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 present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially in Comey's case.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

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

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

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

The decision further indicates that because the charge is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against James and Comey, the judge was blunt: 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 invalid.

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

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

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

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

But Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as outstanding.

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