🔗 Share this article

Two well-known opponents of President Trump obtained significant legal victories on the start of the week when a federal 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 maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, saying he believes Trump will probably target him again.

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

But the government faces steep obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the justice department appeal?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, pledging to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

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

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new charges.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different grand jury and get a new indictment, said Ms 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 Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

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

It could be harder for the government to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against Comey and James, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and need Senate approval. US laws regulate how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

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

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

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

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