🔗 Share this article

Two prominent opponents of former President Trump achieved major court wins on Monday when a US judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes Trump is likely to target him once more.

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

But the DOJ confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can contest the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this instance, 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 expedited appeal.

Previously, 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, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

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

Could there be new charges?

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

Each pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, 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 convene new grand juries and obtain new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could present James's case to a new grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Ms Levine.

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially in Comey's case.

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

He characterized the complex web of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to contend the government is out of time.

The decision further indicates that because the charge is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

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

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

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

But Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

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