🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of President Trump obtained major court wins on Monday when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent 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 merely singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood 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 will not be the final word on this issue.

But the government faces steep obstacles to effectively try both after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the DOJ appeal?

The Department of Justice can challenge the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would take this route, pledging to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

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

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

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

But legal expert John Day, president 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 assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

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

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict him for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it plans to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

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

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

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

The decision might also cast a shadow on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

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

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.