🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of former President Trump secured major court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, saying he believes the former president will probably come after him once more.

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

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

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

Could the DOJ appeal?

The Department of Justice can contest Judge Currie's ruling 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 legal means, including an expedited appeal.

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

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

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government accused James Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new grand jury and secure a new indictment, stated Ms Levine.

But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – 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 able to secure an indictment.

He described the complex web of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his legal team said it plans to argue the government is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against James and Comey, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to file the charges, she wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's position on future 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 Bondi said on that day that she designated her a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as excellent.

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