🔗 Share this article

Two well-known opponents of former President Trump obtained major court wins on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the federal indictments against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, saying he believes the former president will probably target him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the government confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the justice department appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

The government charged Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure a new indictment, stated Professor Levine.

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

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

He described the tangle of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to bring the exact same charges against James Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to argue the government is past the deadline.

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

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

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and need Senate approval. US laws govern how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

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

The administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.