🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of President Trump secured major court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, saying he thinks Trump will probably target him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the DOJ faces significant hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, said Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department appeal?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to convene fresh grand juries and obtain new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could bring James' case to a new grand jury and get a fresh 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 Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

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

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to contend the government is out of time.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against James and Comey, the judge was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

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

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

But Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.

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