🔗 Share this article

Two prominent opponents of former President Trump obtained significant court wins on Monday when a federal judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes Trump is likely to target him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the last chapter on this issue.

But the DOJ faces steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can contest Judge Currie's ruling before a higher appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government accused James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to convene fresh grand juries and secure new indictments.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Ms Levine.

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in Comey's case.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It might be more difficult for the DOJ to try to bring the identical accusations against Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it intends to contend the prosecution is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney 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's appointment was improper.

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

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

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and need Senate approval. US laws govern how people can be appointed 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 both individuals, again, uncertain.

The ruling also could raise doubts on other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special US attorney and praised her work as outstanding.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.