🔗 Share this article

Two prominent opponents of President Trump achieved significant legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes Trump is likely to target him again.

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

But the government confronts steep obstacles to effectively try either after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the DOJ appeal?

The Department of Justice can contest 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 indicated she would take this route, pledging to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, 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 lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

The government accused James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

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

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

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could bring James' case to a new grand jury and secure a new indictment, said Ms 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 hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It could be harder for the DOJ to try to bring the exact same charges against James Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which expired 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 situation, his legal team said it intends to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

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

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

The decision might also cast a shadow on any other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as outstanding.

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