🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of President Trump obtained significant court wins on Monday when a US 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 argued vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

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

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the final word on this matter.

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

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeals process, the justice department probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government charged James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with financial 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 vindictive prosecution.

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

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

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

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It could be harder for the DOJ to try to bring the exact same charges against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline 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 refile the case.

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

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

The judge stated in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and need Senate approval. US laws govern how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

The ruling also could raise doubts on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she designated Halligan a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as excellent.

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