🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of former President Trump secured significant court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge threw out the government's charges against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, saying he thinks the former president will probably come after him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this matter.

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

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

Might the DOJ appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Ms Levine.

But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly 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 assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

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

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

Still in that situation, his legal team said it intends to argue the prosecution is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is void, the time limit has expired 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, the judge was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

US attorneys are nominated by the president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

The ruling also could cast a shadow 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 US attorney and commended her work as outstanding.

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