🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of President Trump obtained major legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the government to try again.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, saying he thinks the former president will probably come after him once more.

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

But the government faces significant hurdles 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.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

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

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

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, 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 argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government charged Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

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

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

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new grand jury and secure a new indictment, stated Ms 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 Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

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

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his legal team said it intends to argue the government is out of time.

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the president and need Senate approval. US laws regulate how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these laws.

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as excellent.

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