🔗 Share this article

Two prominent opponents of President Trump secured significant court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, stating he believes Trump is likely to target him again.

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

But the DOJ faces significant hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the justice department appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

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

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

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to convene new grand juries and obtain new charges.

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

But 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 can obtain an charge.

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

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against James and Comey, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

The judge stated in the James ruling that the AG's effort to appoint Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

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

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

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

The decision might also raise doubts on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

But Bondi said on Monday that she made Halligan a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as excellent.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.