🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of former President Trump secured major legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, stating he believes Trump will probably target him again.

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

But the DOJ confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the DOJ appeal?

The DOJ can contest the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed 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 lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.

Could there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming 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 convene new grand juries and obtain new indictments.

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure a new indictment, said Professor Levine.

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

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It might be more difficult 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 government lawyers had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it intends to argue the government is out of time.

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

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

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

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

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

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