🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of former President Trump obtained major legal victories on Monday when a US judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

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

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

But the DOJ faces significant obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government accused Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

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

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and obtain new charges.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, said Professor Levine.

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

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against James Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

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

The decision further indicates that because the indictment is void, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges 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 Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

As a result, she lacked legal power to present the indictment, she wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

The decision might also raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

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

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.