🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile opponents of former President Trump obtained significant legal victories on Monday when a US judge threw out the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks Trump will probably come after him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the last chapter on this matter.

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

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department appeal?

The DOJ can contest the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this case, 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 expedited appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

In the event of 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 fresh indictments?

The government accused James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to assemble new grand juries and obtain new charges.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a new 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.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the complex web of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It could be harder for the government to try to bring the exact same charges against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict him for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his legal team said it intends to argue the government is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that because the charge is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against James and Comey, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

Therefore, she lacked legal power to present the indictment, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

This makes 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 serves.

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

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