🔗 Share this article

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

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president is likely to come after him again.

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

But the government confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast 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 justice department appeal?

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

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

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

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

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

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and obtain new charges.

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

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

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire 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 deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his legal team said it plans to contend the government is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is void, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

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

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

That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

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

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

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