🔗 Share this article

Two well-known critics of former President Trump secured major legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes the former president 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 issue.

But the DOJ faces steep hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

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

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government charged Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to convene new grand juries and secure new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and get a new indictment, stated Professor Levine.

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

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

He described the complex web of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It could be harder for the government to try to bring the exact same charges against Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

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

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

Therefore, she lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

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

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she designated 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.