🔗 Share this article

Two prominent critics of President Trump secured major court wins on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, saying he believes the former president is likely to 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 confronts significant hurdles to effectively try both after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the justice department appeal?

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

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

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

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.

Could there be new charges?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to convene fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, stated Ms 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 hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, courts, and legal filings 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 statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it intends to contend the government is out of time.

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

As a result, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these laws.

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

The decision might also cast a shadow on any other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

But Bondi said on Monday that she made her a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as outstanding.

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