🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of President Trump achieved major court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the government to try again.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, saying he believes Trump is likely to come after him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.

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

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

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

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and get 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 – certainly in the Comey matter.

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

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

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it intends to contend the prosecution is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that since 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 the pair of rulings 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 AG's effort to appoint Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

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

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

That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

The decision might also raise doubts on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District 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, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.