🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of President Trump achieved significant legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, saying he thinks the former president will probably target him again.

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

But the DOJ confronts significant obstacles to effectively try both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

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

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

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

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the government 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 get a new indictment, stated Professor Levine.

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

He described the tangle of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge him for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to contend the government is out of time.

The decision further indicates that since the charge is void, the time limit 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 AG's effort to appoint Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

As a result, she lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and need Senate approval. US laws govern how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

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

The ruling also could raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

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

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.