🔗 Share this article

Two prominent critics of former President Trump achieved significant court wins on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, saying he believes Trump is likely to target him again.

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

But the DOJ confronts significant hurdles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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, vowing to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

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

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), 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 different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Professor Levine.

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

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 government to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is invalid, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James ruling that the AG's effort to install Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, once more, unclear.

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as outstanding.

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