🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile opponents of President Trump achieved major legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, stating he believes Trump 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 issue.

But the DOJ confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the DOJ appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new 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 complicated path – certainly in Comey's case.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is able to secure an charge.

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

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

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

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it plans to contend the government is past the deadline.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

As a result, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

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

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

The administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.