🔗 Share this article

Two prominent opponents of former President Trump achieved major court wins on the start of the week 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 maintained fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for retaliation.

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

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, saying he believes the former president is likely to target him once more.

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

But the government confronts steep obstacles to effectively try both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed 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 attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

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

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to assemble new grand juries and secure new indictments.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could present James's case to a new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, said Ms Levine.

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in Comey's case.

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

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

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

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

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

The decision further indicates that because the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer 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's appointment was improper.

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

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, she wrote.

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

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

The ruling also could cast a shadow on other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

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

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