🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of President Trump achieved significant court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, saying he believes the former president is likely to come after him once more.

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

But the government confronts significant obstacles to effectively try either after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged 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 present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

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

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to assemble new grand juries and secure new charges.

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

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

He described the complex web of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It could be more difficult for the government to try to bring the exact same charges against James Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge him for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it intends to contend the government is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that because the charge is invalid, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

US attorneys are proposed by the president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these laws.

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

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

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

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