🔗 Share this article

Two prominent opponents of President Trump achieved major court wins on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting 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 attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, stating he thinks the former president is likely to come after him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this issue.

But the government faces steep hurdles to effectively try either after this setback, and experts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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 challenge 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 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 adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

Each pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both 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 indictments.

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

But John Day, president 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 hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

He described the tangle of attorneys, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It might be harder for the government to try to file the exact same charges against James Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it intends to contend the prosecution is out of time.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

US attorneys are proposed by the president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

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

The decision might also raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

But Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as outstanding.

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