🔗 Share this article

Two well-known opponents of former President Trump obtained major legal victories on Monday when a federal judge threw out the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the government to try again.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

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

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the last chapter on this issue.

But the DOJ confronts significant obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Ms Levine.

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in Comey's case.

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

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

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against James Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

As a result, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

The ruling also could raise doubts on other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District 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 administration stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.