🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of former President Trump secured significant legal victories on Monday when a US judge threw out the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president is likely to come after him once more.

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

But the government confronts significant hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said 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 Court of Appeals.

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

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

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and secure new indictments.

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

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

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

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

It might be harder for the DOJ to try to bring the identical accusations against James Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. However, 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 legal team said it intends to contend the prosecution is out of time.

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is void, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the AG's effort to install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

The ruling also could cast a shadow on other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

But Bondi said on that day that she made her a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.

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