🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of former President Trump secured significant legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes Trump will probably come after him once more.

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

But the government faces significant hurdles to effectively try both after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, pledging to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

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

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), 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 get a fresh indictment, said Professor Levine.

But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it intends to contend the government is out of time.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

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

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, once more, unclear.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

The administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.