🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile critics of President Trump achieved significant legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for revenge.

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

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

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

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the final word on this issue.

But the government faces steep hurdles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the justice department appeal?

The DOJ can challenge the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure a new indictment, said Ms Levine.

But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is able to secure an charge.

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

It could be more difficult for the government to try to bring the exact same charges against Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

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

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

The judge stated in the James ruling that the AG's effort to install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

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

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

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and praised her work as outstanding.

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