🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of former President Trump secured significant court wins on Monday when a US judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for revenge.

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

• 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 are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks 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 DOJ faces steep hurdles to effectively try either after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the justice department appeal?

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 immediate appeal.

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

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

In the event of an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government charged James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a new grand jury and secure a new indictment, stated Professor Levine.

But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially in Comey's case.

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

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

It could be more difficult for the government to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it intends to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is void, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney 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 Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to file the charges, she wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

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

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

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