🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of former President Trump obtained significant court wins on Monday when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, saying he thinks the former president will probably target him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this issue.

But the DOJ confronts steep hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged 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 role in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government accused James Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different grand jury and get 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.

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the complex web of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It might be more difficult for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict him for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the AG's effort to install Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and require US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.

That leaves 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 works.

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.