🔗 Share this article

Two well-known opponents of former President Trump obtained significant court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, saying he believes the former president is likely to come after him again.

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

But the government faces steep hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the DOJ appeal?

The DOJ can challenge 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, pledging to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government accused Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to convene new 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 Professor Levine.

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

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ 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 time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

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

US attorneys are nominated by the president and require Senate approval. US laws govern how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

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 Monday that she made her a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.