🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of President Trump achieved significant court wins on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to attorney 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 former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, stating he thinks Trump will probably target him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the last chapter on this issue.

But the DOJ confronts steep obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any further 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 involvement in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain 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, said Ms Levine.

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

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

He described the complex web of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it intends to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the AG's effort to appoint Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

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

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

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

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

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

The administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.