🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of former President Trump secured significant legal victories on Monday when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, saying he thinks the former president will probably target him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.

But the government confronts steep obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the justice department appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and secure 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, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in the Comey matter.

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

He characterized the complex web of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It might be harder for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it plans to argue the government is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against James and Comey, the judge was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the AG's effort to install Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

Therefore, she lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how people can be assigned on a interim 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, once more, unclear.

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

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

The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.