🔗 Share this article

Two well-known opponents of former President Trump secured major court wins on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG 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 decision, saying he thinks Trump is likely to target him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the last chapter on this matter.

But the DOJ faces significant hurdles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to convene fresh grand juries and secure new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new 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 the Comey matter.

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

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

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

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

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to argue the government is past the deadline.

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, the judge 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 Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern 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 position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, once more, unclear.

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

But Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as excellent.

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