🔗 Share this article

Two well-known opponents of President Trump obtained significant legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

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

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the government to try again.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, saying he believes the former president is likely to come after him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.

But the government faces significant hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the DOJ appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions 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.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to convene new grand juries and obtain new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure a new indictment, said Ms Levine.

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

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged 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 simple answers.

It could be harder for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against James Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it plans to argue the government is out of time.

The decision further indicates that because the indictment is invalid, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and require Senate approval. US laws govern how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

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

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

But 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 reporters on Monday.