🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile opponents of former President Trump secured significant legal victories 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 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 dismissed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, saying he thinks Trump will probably come after him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the last chapter on this matter.

But the DOJ confronts significant hurdles to effectively try both after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, pledging to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

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

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, said Professor Levine.

But 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 hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an charge.

He described the tangle of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

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

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James decision that the AG's effort to install Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

Therefore, she lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and require Senate approval. US laws govern how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

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

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.

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