🔗 Share this article

Two well-known opponents of former President Trump obtained major court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges filed 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, asserting that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, saying he believes the former president will probably target him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the last chapter on this matter.

But the DOJ confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

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

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

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing 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 DOJ might try to assemble new grand juries and secure new indictments.

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

But John Day, president 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 hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

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

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

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

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

What is the fate of prosecutor 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 Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

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

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

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

The decision might also raise doubts on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

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

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