🔗 Share this article

Two prominent opponents of President Trump achieved significant court wins on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for revenge.

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

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, saying he thinks Trump will probably come after him once more.

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

But the DOJ faces steep hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and experts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, said Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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 aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving 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 further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department 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 government accused James Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

He characterized the complex web of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

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

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

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to contend the prosecution is out of time.

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

US attorneys 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 breached these laws.

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as excellent.

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