🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of former President Trump obtained major legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, saying he believes Trump is likely to target him once more.

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

But the government faces steep hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could 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 Court of Appeals.

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

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

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

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

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and get a fresh indictment, said Professor Levine.

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

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

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

It could be harder for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it intends to contend the government is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is invalid, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of 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 AG's effort to install Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

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

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

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

The ruling also could raise doubts on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

But Bondi said on that day that she made her a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.

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