🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of former President Trump secured significant court wins 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 insisted vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

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

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president is likely to target him again.

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

But the government faces steep hurdles to effectively try either after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can challenge Judge Currie's ruling before a higher appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

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

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.

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

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

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing 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 fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

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

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

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict him 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.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it plans to contend the government is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is void, the time limit has expired and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against James and Comey, the judge was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

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

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

The ruling also could cast a shadow on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

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

The administration maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.