🔗 Share this article

Two well-known opponents of former President Trump achieved significant legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities 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 the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

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

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the final word on this issue.

But the DOJ confronts steep hurdles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the justice department appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government charged Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

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

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

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 Comey for these specific allegations – which ended 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.

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

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

The judge stated in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

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

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

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

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

But 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 the press on Monday.