🔗 Share this article

Two well-known opponents of former President Trump achieved major legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

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

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks the former president is likely to come after him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the final word on this matter.

But the government faces steep hurdles to effectively try either after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

The government charged James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be victims 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 charges.

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

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

I can tell you 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 charge.

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

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict him for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Still in that case, his legal team said it intends to contend the government is out of time.

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

Therefore, she lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how people can be assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

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

But Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as excellent.

The administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.