🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of former President Trump obtained significant legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, 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 merely singling out them for revenge.

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

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, saying he believes the former president is likely to target him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the last chapter on this matter.

But the government confronts significant obstacles to effectively try both after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the justice department appeal?

The DOJ can challenge the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to convene fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

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

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

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 indictment.

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

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

US attorneys are nominated by the president and need US Senate confirmation. 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 subsequent cases against James and Comey, once more, unclear.

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

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

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