🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile opponents of President Trump secured significant legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, saying he believes the former president is likely to target him once more.

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

But the government faces steep hurdles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

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

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

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

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

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in Comey's case.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

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

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against Comey and James, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

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

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

The ruling also could raise doubts on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.