🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile opponents of former President Trump achieved significant legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also 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
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks Trump will probably target him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the DOJ faces significant hurdles to effectively try both after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, stated 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 case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, vowing to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

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

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to assemble new grand juries and secure new indictments.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and get a new indictment, stated Ms Levine.

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

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He described the complex web of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It could be harder for the DOJ to try to bring the exact same charges against James Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate 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 prosecution is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is invalid, the time limit has expired and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these laws.

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

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

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.