🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile opponents of President Trump obtained major court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out cases 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 ruling, saying he thinks Trump is likely to target him again.

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

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

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can challenge the judge's decision before a higher appeals court. In this instance, 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.

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted 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 convene new grand juries and obtain new charges.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

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

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

He described the complex web of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge him for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his legal team said it plans to contend the government is out of time.

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James ruling that the AG's effort to install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

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

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how people can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she designated 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 reporters on Monday.