🔗 Share this article

Two well-known opponents of former President Trump secured significant court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks Trump is likely to target him once more.

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

But the government faces steep hurdles to effectively try either after this setback, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can contest the judge's decision before a higher appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government charged Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

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

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Still in that case, his legal team said it plans to contend the government is out of time.

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against James and Comey, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

Therefore, she lacked legal power to present the indictment, she wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

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

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special US attorney and praised her work as outstanding.

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