🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of President Trump obtained significant court wins on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the government to try again.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, saying he thinks Trump is likely to come after him again.

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

But the government confronts steep hurdles to effectively try either after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

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

If there is an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government charged James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

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

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – 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 can obtain an indictment.

He described the complex web of attorneys, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is void, the time limit has expired and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on 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 ruling that the AG's effort to install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

As a result, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

The ruling also could raise doubts 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 praised her work as excellent.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.