🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of former President Trump obtained significant court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, saying he thinks the former president is likely to come after him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the final word on this matter.

But the government confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the DOJ appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (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 different grand jury and get a new indictment, stated Ms Levine.

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

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

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

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it intends to argue the prosecution is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is invalid, the time limit has expired and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

The decision might also raise doubts on other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

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

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