🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent critics of President Trump achieved major legal victories on Monday when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, stating he believes the former president is likely to come after him once more.

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

But the government confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

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

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

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

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

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

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

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

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, said 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.

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

He described the tangle of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the AG's effort to appoint Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

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

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

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

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

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

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