🔗 Share this article

Two prominent opponents of President Trump obtained significant legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks the former president is likely to target him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the government faces steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the justice department appeal?

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

US 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 unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

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

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

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Professor Levine.

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially 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 described the tangle of attorneys, courts, and motions 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.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his legal team said it plans to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What is the fate of 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 ruling that the AG's effort to install Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

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

US attorneys are proposed by the president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

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

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

The administration maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.