🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile critics of President Trump obtained significant legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

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

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, stating he thinks the former president is likely to target him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the government confronts steep obstacles to effectively try both after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Could the justice department appeal?

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

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

Previously, the former 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 further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government accused James Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be victims 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 charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure a new indictment, said Professor Levine.

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

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

He described the complex web of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge him for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it plans to contend the government is out of time.

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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.

As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she made Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.