🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile opponents of former President Trump achieved major legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

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

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes the former president will probably target him once more.

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

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

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would take this route, pledging to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, 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 motivated charges through every lawful means available.

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

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly 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 indictment.

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

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against James Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it intends to contend the prosecution is out of time.

The ruling also suggests 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 both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.

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

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

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

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