🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of President Trump secured significant legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses 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 acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, stating he believes the former president will probably come after him again.

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

But the DOJ faces steep hurdles to effectively try both after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would pursue this option, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to keep fighting any further 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.

Could there be new charges?

The government accused Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene 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 fresh indictment, said Ms Levine.

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

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

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It might be more difficult for the DOJ to try to bring the exact same charges against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to argue the prosecution is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against James and Comey, the judge was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

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

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

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

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.