🔗 Share this article

Two prominent opponents of President Trump secured major legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for retaliation.

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

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

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, stating he believes Trump will probably come after him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the final word on this matter.

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

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

Might the justice department appeal?

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

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

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government charged James Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to convene new grand juries and obtain new charges.

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

But John Day, head 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 re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He described the tangle of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to contend the government is out of time.

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges 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 Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

The ruling also could raise doubts on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as excellent.

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