Two prominent opponents of President Trump obtained major legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.
For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for revenge.
Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities 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 compromised Comey case
- What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?
Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president is likely to target him again.
And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this matter.
But the government confronts significant hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.
In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.
Might the DOJ appeal?
The DOJ can challenge the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, pledging to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.
In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.
Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.
If there is an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.
Could there be new charges?
The government charged James Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.
Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.
Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to assemble new grand juries and secure new charges.
Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, said Professor Levine.
But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in the Comey matter.
I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.
He described the tangle of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.
It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to bring the identical accusations against James Comey.
A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.
Still in that situation, his legal team said it intends to argue the prosecution is out of time.
The decision further indicates that because the indictment is void, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.
What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?
In both decisions on the charges against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.
Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.
Therefore, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, she wrote.
US attorneys are nominated by the president and need Senate approval. US laws govern how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.
This makes Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.
The ruling also could cast a shadow on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.
But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.
The administration stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.
