🔗 Share this article

Two prominent opponents of former President Trump obtained major court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes Trump is likely to target him again.

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

But the government faces significant obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

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

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

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

Could there be new charges?

The government charged James Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed 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 indictments.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, stated Professor Levine.

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

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

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

It might be harder for the government to try to bring the exact same charges against James Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it plans to argue the prosecution 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 on Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the AG's effort to install Halligan as Interim 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.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and need Senate approval. US laws govern how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.

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

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as excellent.

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