🔗 Share this article

Two well-known critics of former President Trump secured significant legal victories on Monday when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, saying he believes Trump will probably come after him once more.

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

But the government faces significant obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can challenge 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 indicated she would pursue this option, vowing to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

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

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government accused James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

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

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 charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could present James's case to a new 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 – certainly in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the complex web of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It could be harder for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

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

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

The judge stated 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 nominated by the US president and require Senate approval. US laws regulate how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

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

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

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