🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of former President Trump achieved major court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, saying he thinks the former president will probably target him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the final word on this issue.

But the DOJ confronts significant hurdles to effectively try both after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in the Comey matter.

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

He described the complex web of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It might 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 him for these specific allegations – which ended 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.

Still in that case, his legal team said it plans to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, she wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, once more, unclear.

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

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

The White House maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.