🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of President Trump obtained significant court wins on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the federal indictments against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open 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 DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, saying he believes Trump is likely to come after him again.

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

But the DOJ faces steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can contest the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

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

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

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

Could there be new charges?

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

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to convene new grand juries and obtain new charges.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, stated Professor 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 recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the complex web of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It might be more difficult for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against James Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge him for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it plans to argue the prosecution is out of time.

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

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

That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

The ruling also could raise doubts on other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

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

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