A pair of high-profile opponents of former President Trump obtained significant legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed 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 not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for retaliation.
Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the government to try again.
- Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
- Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
- What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?
Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, saying he believes the former president will probably come after him once more.
And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.
But the DOJ faces significant obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.
In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, 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 Appeals Court.
Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, pledging to use all available legal action, including an expedited 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.
Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.
In the event of an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.
Could there be new charges?
The federal prosecutors accused Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.
Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.
With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to convene fresh grand juries and obtain new charges.
As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could present James's case to a new grand jury and get a new indictment, said Professor Levine.
But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in Comey's case.
I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an charge.
He described the tangle of attorneys, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.
It might be more difficult for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against Comey.
A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.
Even so in that situation, his legal team said it intends to contend the government is past the deadline.
The ruling also suggests that since the charge is void, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.
What happens to Lindsey Halligan?
In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.
The judge stated in the James decision that the AG's effort to install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.
Therefore, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.
Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.
This makes Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.
The decision might also cast a shadow on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.
But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she made her a special US attorney and commended her work as outstanding.
The White House maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.
