🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of former President Trump secured significant court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

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

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

But the DOJ confronts significant hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can contest the judge's decision before a higher appeals court. In this case, 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 immediate appeal.

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

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

Could there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed 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 assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

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

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

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an charge.

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, 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 situation, his legal team said it plans to contend the prosecution is out of time.

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges 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 appoint Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

As a result, she lacked legal power to present the indictment, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she made her a special US attorney and praised her work as outstanding.

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