🔗 Share this article

Two prominent critics of President Trump obtained major legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, stating he thinks 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 faces significant obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

Each pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to assemble new grand juries and obtain new charges.

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

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

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict him for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his legal team said it intends to argue the government is out of time.

The decision further indicates that because the charge is invalid, the time limit has expired and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against James and Comey, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

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

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

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she made her a special federal prosecutor 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.