🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of President Trump obtained major legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the government to try again.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, saying he believes the former president is likely to target him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.

But the government faces steep obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

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

If there is an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Each pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

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 John Day, head 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 strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is able to secure an charge.

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

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict him for these particular claims – which expired 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 argue the government is out of time.

The decision further indicates that because the charge is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James decision that the AG's effort to appoint Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and need Senate approval. US laws govern how people can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

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

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

The administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.