🔗 Share this article

Two well-known critics of President Trump obtained significant legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks Trump is likely to come after him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the final word on this issue.

But the government faces steep obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the DOJ appeal?

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

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

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

The government charged Comey with lying 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 retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene new grand juries and obtain new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new 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.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an charge.

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to argue the prosecution is out of time.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions 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 install Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the president and require Senate approval. US laws govern how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.

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

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

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

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