🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of President Trump obtained significant court wins on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, saying he believes Trump will probably come after him once more.

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

But the DOJ confronts significant hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and experts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

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

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Each pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to convene new grand juries and obtain new charges.

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

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

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

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

It could be harder for the government to try to file the exact same charges against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges 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 Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

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

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

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

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.