🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of former President Trump obtained significant legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the government to try again.

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

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes Trump will probably come after him again.

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

But the DOJ confronts steep hurdles to effectively try either after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

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

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government charged James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted 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 convene new grand juries and obtain new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a new grand jury and secure a new indictment, stated Ms Levine.

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

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against James Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it plans to contend the government is past the deadline.

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

As a result, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and require US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

The decision might also raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated Halligan a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as excellent.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.