🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of former President Trump secured significant legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for retaliation.

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

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

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

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the last chapter on this matter.

But the government faces steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, stated Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would pursue this option, vowing to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

The government charged Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could present James's case to a new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, said Ms Levine.

But 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 hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

He described the tangle of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It could be harder for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against James Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict him for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it plans to argue the government is past the deadline.

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

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

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

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

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

But Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as outstanding.

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