🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of President Trump secured significant legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director 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 merely singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• 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 once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the last chapter on this issue.

But the government confronts steep hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and legal analysts 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, law professor at Emory University.

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can contest Judge Currie's ruling before a federal appeals court. In this case, 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 immediate appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and secure new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a new grand jury and get a new indictment, said Professor Levine.

But legal expert 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 Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict him for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it intends to argue the government is past the deadline.

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to file the charges, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, once more, unclear.

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

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

The White House maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.