🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of President Trump achieved significant legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed 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 innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. 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 New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

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

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the DOJ faces significant hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the justice department appeal?

The Department of Justice can challenge 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 signaled she would take this route, vowing to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the government 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 new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Professor Levine.

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – 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 assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

He described the tangle of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to bring the exact same charges against Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his legal team said it intends to contend the government is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney 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 was wrongly appointed.

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

As a result, she lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she designated her a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

The administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.