Two prominent opponents of President Trump secured significant court wins on Monday when a federal judge threw out the government's charges against them.
For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for retaliation.
US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.
- Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
- US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
- What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?
Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, stating he thinks Trump will probably come after him again.
And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the last chapter on this issue.
But the DOJ confronts steep hurdles to effectively try both after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.
In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.
Might the justice department appeal?
The Department of Justice can challenge the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.
Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, vowing to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.
In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.
Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.
In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.
Could there be new charges?
The federal prosecutors charged 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.
Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be targets 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 secure new charges.
Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Professor Levine.
But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially in Comey's case.
I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, 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 complex web of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.
It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to bring the exact same charges against Comey.
A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.
Still in that case, his lawyers said it intends to contend the government is out of time.
The decision further indicates that since the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.
What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?
In both decisions on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.
Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling 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.
Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and require Senate approval. US laws regulate how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.
That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.
The decision might also raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.
But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she made her a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.
The administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.
