🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of President Trump secured major legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, stating he thinks Trump will probably target him once more.

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

But the DOJ confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the DOJ appeal?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests 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 probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government charged James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new charges.

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

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

He described the complex web of lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

The ruling also suggests that because the charge is invalid, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against James and Comey, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

The judge stated in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the president and require US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

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

But Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as excellent.

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