🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of President Trump obtained major court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them 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 government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, stating he thinks Trump will probably come after 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 significant hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the DOJ appeal?

The DOJ can contest Judge Currie's ruling before a higher appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

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

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Ms Levine.

But 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 hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

He described the complex web of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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