🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of former President Trump achieved significant court wins on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the federal indictments against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president will probably come after him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the last chapter on this issue.

But the government confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can contest Judge Currie's ruling before a higher appeals court. In this case, 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 immediate appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

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

Could there be new charges?

The government charged Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

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

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It might 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 deadline that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it intends to contend the government is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is invalid, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

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

The decision might also raise doubts on other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

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

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.