🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of former President Trump obtained significant legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, saying he thinks Trump will probably come after him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the government faces steep hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

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

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

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 (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to assemble new grand juries and obtain new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a new 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 complex process – certainly in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the tangle of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It might be more difficult for the DOJ to try to bring the exact same charges against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that since the charge is invalid, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the AG's effort to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

Therefore, she lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

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

But Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan 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 reporters on Monday.