🔗 Share this article

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

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood 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 last chapter on this issue.

But the government confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the DOJ appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

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

Could there be new charges?

The government charged James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to 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 DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

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

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

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

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to contend the prosecution 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, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

The decision might also cast a shadow on any other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

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

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