🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of former President Trump achieved major legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

For 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 administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

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

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes Trump is likely to target him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.

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

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

Might the DOJ appeal?

The DOJ 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 legal means, including an expedited 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, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Could there be new charges?

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

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

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

It might be more difficult for the DOJ to try to bring the identical accusations against James Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What is the fate of 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 appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and require 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.

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

The ruling also could cast a shadow on other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

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

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.