🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of President Trump secured major court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes Trump is likely to target him once more.

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

But the government faces significant obstacles to effectively try both after this defeat, and experts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the justice department 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 Appeals Court.

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

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.

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

In the event of an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government charged James Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

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

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

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

But legal expert 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 strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It might be more difficult 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 Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the end 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 case, his legal team said it intends to contend the government is past the deadline.

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

What happens to 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 decision that the AG's effort to install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

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

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and require Senate approval. US laws govern how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

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

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

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