🔗 Share this article

Two prominent opponents of former President Trump secured major court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the government to try again.

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

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

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

But the DOJ faces steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the justice department appeal?

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

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

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

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 justice department likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government accused James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to assemble new grand juries and obtain new indictments.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and get 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 hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

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

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger 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 prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

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

The ruling also could cast a shadow on other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

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

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.