🔗 Share this article

Two prominent opponents of President Trump achieved major legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, stating he believes Trump is likely to come after him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this issue.

But the government confronts significant obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government accused Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

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

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a different grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

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

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

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It could be harder for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against James Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

Still in that case, his lawyers 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 expired and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

US attorneys are nominated by the president and require US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

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

The decision might also cast a shadow on any 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 commended her work as outstanding.

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