🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of President Trump secured significant court wins on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

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

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this issue.

But the government confronts steep hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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.

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

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming 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 assemble fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and get a new indictment, stated Professor Levine.

But legal expert John Day, president 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 hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He described the tangle of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It could be harder for the government to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it plans to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is void, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

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

US attorneys are nominated by the president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

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

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

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