🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of President Trump secured major court wins on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes the former president is likely to come after him once more.

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

But the DOJ confronts significant obstacles to effectively try both after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, vowing to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene fresh 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 Ms Levine.

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It might be harder for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against James Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that since the charge is void, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and need Senate approval. US laws govern how people can be assigned 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 decision might also raise doubts on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

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

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