🔗 Share this article

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

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

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

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

But the government faces steep hurdles to effectively try either after this setback, and experts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, vowing to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

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

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to convene fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

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

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an charge.

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

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge him for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his legal team said it intends to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James decision that the AG's effort to appoint Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

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

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

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

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as outstanding.

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