🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of President Trump achieved significant court wins on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes the former president will probably target him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the last chapter on this issue.

But the government confronts significant obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict 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.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government charged Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to convene new grand juries and secure new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure a new indictment, stated Ms Levine.

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

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

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his legal team said it intends to argue the government is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that since the charge is invalid, the time limit has expired and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

As a result, she lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

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

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, once more, unclear.

The decision might also cast a shadow on other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

But Bondi said on Monday that she made her a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.