🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of President Trump achieved significant court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks the former president is likely to target him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this issue.

But the government confronts significant hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking 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.

If there is an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure 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 – certainly in Comey's case.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the tangle of attorneys, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

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

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

Still in that situation, his legal team said it plans to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that because the charge is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions 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 install Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

As a result, she lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

The administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.