🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of President Trump achieved significant court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

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

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president is likely to target him once more.

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

But the government confronts steep hurdles to effectively try either after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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.

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

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests 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 likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

The government charged Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be targets 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 indictments.

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

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially in Comey's case.

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

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

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 indictment is void, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US 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 assignment had violated these regulations.

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

The decision might also cast a shadow on other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

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

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