🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of former President Trump secured significant court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

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

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

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, stating he believes the former president will probably target him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the final word on this issue.

But the government faces steep hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can challenge 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, pledging to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government accused Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

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

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to assemble 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, stated Ms Levine.

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially in Comey's case.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

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

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to contend the government is out of time.

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the AG's effort to install Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to file the charges, she wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special federal prosecutor 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.