🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of President Trump secured major court wins on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities 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 Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, stating he thinks Trump is likely to come after him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the final word on this issue.

But the DOJ confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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 instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

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

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to assemble new grand juries and obtain new charges.

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

But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially in Comey's case.

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

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It might 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 Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it plans to argue the prosecution is out of time.

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and require US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how people can be assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she designated her 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.