🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of President Trump secured significant legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president is likely to target him once more.

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

But the DOJ faces steep obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the DOJ appeal?

The DOJ can challenge the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would take this route, pledging to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted 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 convene new grand juries and obtain new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different grand jury and get a new indictment, stated Ms Levine.

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

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

He described the tangle of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings 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 Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the president and require Senate approval. US laws regulate how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

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

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

The administration maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.