🔗 Share this article

Two prominent critics of former President Trump achieved significant court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for revenge.

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

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

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

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

But the government confronts significant 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.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department appeal?

The Department of Justice can contest Judge Currie's ruling 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 available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to convene new grand juries and secure new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a new grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Ms Levine.

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially in Comey's case.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It could be more difficult for the government to try to file the exact same charges against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to contend the government is out of time.

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against James and Comey, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and require US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

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

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

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

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.