🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of former President Trump achieved major court wins on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

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

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

But the DOJ confronts significant obstacles to effectively try both after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department appeal?

The Department of Justice 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 take this route, vowing to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

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

Could there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they 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 assemble fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a new grand jury and get a new indictment, stated Professor Levine.

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

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

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

The ruling also suggests that because the charge is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings 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 Attorney General's attempt to install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

As a result, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, she wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how individuals 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 both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

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

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