🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of former President Trump secured major legal victories on the start of the week 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 argued vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for revenge.

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

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, stating he believes Trump is likely to come after him once more.

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

But the DOJ faces steep hurdles to effectively try either after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Could the justice department appeal?

The DOJ can challenge 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, pledging to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to convene new grand juries and obtain new indictments.

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new grand jury and secure 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 strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

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

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict Comey 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 refile the case.

Still in that case, his legal team said it intends to argue the government is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that because the charge is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney 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 was wrongly appointed.

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

As a result, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how individuals can be assigned 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 raise doubts on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as excellent.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.