🔗 Share this article

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

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for revenge.

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

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, saying he thinks the former president will probably come after him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the government faces significant obstacles to effectively try both after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can challenge the judge's decision 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, pledging to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

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

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

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government charged James Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in Comey's case.

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

He described the tangle of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It might be harder for the DOJ to try to bring the exact same charges against Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge him for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that because the indictment is invalid, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against James and Comey, the judge was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

The judge stated in the James ruling that the AG's effort to appoint Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and require Senate approval. US laws regulate how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

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

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

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

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