🔗 Share this article

Two prominent opponents of President Trump secured major legal victories on Monday when a federal judge threw out the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

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

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.

But the DOJ confronts significant obstacles to successfully prosecute both 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, stated Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can challenge the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be targets 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 indictments.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Ms Levine.

But John Day, president 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 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 lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It might be harder for the government to try to file the exact same charges against Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it intends to contend the government is past the deadline.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the AG's effort to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and require US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as outstanding.

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