🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of former President Trump secured major court wins on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

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

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this issue.

But the government faces significant obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, stated Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the DOJ appeal?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled 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 trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

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

Could there be new charges?

The government accused Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could bring James' case to a new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, said Professor Levine.

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the complex web of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it plans to argue the government is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

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

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

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

But 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, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.