🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile opponents of former President Trump secured major court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, stating he believes the former president will probably target him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the final word on this matter.

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

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department 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 take this route, pledging to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government accused James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

But legal expert John Day, president 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 appointed and is able to secure an charge.

He described the complex web of lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

The decision further indicates that because the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has expired 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 indictments against James and Comey, the judge was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

The judge stated in the James decision that the AG's effort to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

As a result, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how people can be assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, once more, unclear.

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

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

The White House maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.