🔗 Share this article

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

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, saying he thinks Trump will probably come after him again.

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

But the DOJ confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ 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 get a new indictment, stated Ms Levine.

But legal expert 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 Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

He described the complex web of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It could be harder for the government to try to file the exact same charges against James Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge him for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to contend the government is past the deadline.

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against Comey and James, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

The ruling also could raise doubts on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

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

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