🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of President Trump achieved major legal victories on Monday when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, saying he thinks the former president is likely to come after him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the final word on this issue.

But the government faces significant obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the justice department appeal?

The DOJ can contest Judge Currie's ruling before a higher appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

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

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

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

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

Each pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed 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 different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially 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 complex web of lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his legal team said it plans to argue the government is out of time.

The decision further indicates that because the charge is invalid, the time limit has expired and there can be no further 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, the judge 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.

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

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

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

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