🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile opponents of former President Trump secured significant court wins on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for retaliation.

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

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, saying he thinks the former president will probably target him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.

But the DOJ faces significant hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could occur 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.

Might the justice department appeal?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, pledging to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

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

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

But 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 strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

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

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against James and Comey, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the AG's effort to install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

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

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, once more, unclear.

The ruling also could cast a shadow on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she made her a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as excellent.

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