🔗 Share this article

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

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the government 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 are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, stating he believes the former president will probably come after him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the last chapter on this issue.

But the DOJ faces significant hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the DOJ appeal?

The Department of Justice can contest the judge's decision 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 available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

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 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 fresh indictments?

The government accused Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, 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 assemble new grand juries and obtain new charges.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Professor Levine.

But John Day, head 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 hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He described the complex web of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

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 government lawyers had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

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

The decision further indicates that since the charge is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the AG's effort to appoint Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.

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

This makes 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 Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

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

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