🔗 Share this article

Two well-known opponents of former President Trump achieved major legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for retaliation.

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

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

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

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

But the government faces significant hurdles to effectively try both after this defeat, and experts hesitate to forecast what could occur 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 justice department challenge the ruling?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

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

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government charged James Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new 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 complicated path – especially in Comey's case.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, judges, 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 identical accusations against James Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it intends to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that since the charge is invalid, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against James and Comey, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

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

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

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

The decision might also cast a shadow on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

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

The administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.