🔗 Share this article

Two well-known opponents of President Trump obtained significant court wins on Monday when a US judge threw out the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, saying he believes Trump will probably target him again.

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

But the government confronts significant hurdles to effectively try either after this setback, and experts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the justice department appeal?

The DOJ can contest the judge's decision 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 legal means, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, 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 additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

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

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it intends to contend the government is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is void, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and require Senate approval. US laws govern how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these laws.

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

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

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

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