🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of President Trump obtained significant court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, 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 merely targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general 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 the former president will probably target him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.

But the DOJ confronts steep hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

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

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

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

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Each 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 convene new grand juries and secure new indictments.

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure a new indictment, stated Ms Levine.

But legal expert John Day, head 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 strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He described the tangle of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It could be harder for the government to try to file the exact same charges against Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict him for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to argue the government is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is invalid, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

The judge stated in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and require US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she made 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.