🔗 Share this article

A pair of 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 filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, stating he believes Trump will probably target him once more.

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

But the DOJ faces steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the DOJ appeal?

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

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

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government charged Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to assemble new 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, said Ms Levine.

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially in Comey's case.

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

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

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against James Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict him for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it plans to argue the prosecution is out of time.

The decision further indicates that because the charge is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

As a result, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and need Senate approval. US laws regulate how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

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

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated Halligan a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as excellent.

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.