🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of former President Trump achieved major court wins on the start of the week 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 insisted vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper 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 are former FBI head 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 spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the final word on this matter.

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

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

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

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government charged Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and get a new indictment, stated Ms Levine.

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

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

He described the complex web of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It could be harder for the government to try to file the exact same charges against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his legal team said it plans to contend the prosecution is out of time.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision 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 present the indictment, the judge wrote.

US attorneys 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 violated these regulations.

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

The ruling also could cast a shadow on other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

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

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