🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of former President Trump achieved significant court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, saying he believes Trump will probably target him once more.

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

But the DOJ faces significant hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, said Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the justice department appeal?

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

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

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

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

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

Could there be new charges?

The government charged James Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged 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 asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

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

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

He described the tangle of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It could be harder for the DOJ to try to file the exact same charges against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it plans to contend the government is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and need Senate approval. US laws govern how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

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

The decision might also raise doubts on other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she designated Halligan a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as excellent.

The administration maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.