🔗 Share this article

Two prominent opponents of former President Trump achieved major legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, saying he believes 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 government confronts significant obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the justice department appeal?

The Department of Justice can challenge the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing 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 DOJ might try to assemble new grand juries and secure new charges.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and secure a fresh 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 the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It might be harder for the DOJ to try to bring the identical accusations against James Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to argue the government is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is invalid, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James decision that the AG's effort to appoint Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

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

US attorneys are proposed by the president and require US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how people 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 subsequent cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

The ruling also could raise doubts on other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

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

The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.