🔗 Share this article

Two well-known critics of former President Trump obtained significant legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, stating he believes the former president is likely to come after him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the DOJ faces significant obstacles to effectively try both after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department appeal?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

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

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to assemble new grand juries and obtain new indictments.

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

But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

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

It might be more difficult for the government to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it intends to argue the government is past the deadline.

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings 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 Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

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

The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.