🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of former President Trump obtained significant legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge threw out the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

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

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the DOJ faces significant obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ probably 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 government charged James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and obtain new charges.

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

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

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned 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 might be more difficult for the government to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict him for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it plans to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that because the charge is void, the time limit has expired and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

The judge stated in the James ruling that the AG's effort to install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and need Senate approval. US laws regulate how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

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

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

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