🔗 Share this article

Two well-known opponents of former President Trump secured major legal victories 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 New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the government to try again.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

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

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

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

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ 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 signaled she would pursue this option, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to assemble new grand juries and obtain new indictments.

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure a new indictment, said Professor Levine.

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

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It might be more difficult for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against James Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and need Senate approval. 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 subsequent cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

The ruling also could 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 US attorney and praised her work as excellent.

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