🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of former President Trump achieved significant court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, saying he thinks Trump is likely to target him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the last chapter on this matter.

But the DOJ faces significant hurdles 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, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department appeal?

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

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

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government accused Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and get a new indictment, stated Ms Levine.

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

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is able to secure an charge.

He described the tangle of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against James and Comey, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the AG's effort to appoint Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

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

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and need Senate approval. US laws govern how people can be assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, once more, 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 her a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as outstanding.

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