🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of President Trump obtained major legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, stating he believes Trump will probably target him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the last chapter on this matter.

But the government confronts steep hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and experts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.

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

If there is an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government charged Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Ms Levine.

But John Day, head 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 hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

He described the complex web of lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It could be harder for the government to try to file the identical accusations against James Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

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

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is void, the time limit has run 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, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

As a result, she had no lawful authority 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 appointed on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

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

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

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