🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of former President Trump obtained major legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for retaliation.

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

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, saying he believes Trump will probably come after him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the final word on this matter.

But the government confronts significant obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

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

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

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government charged Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

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

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially in Comey's case.

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, 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 motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It might be harder for the government to try to bring the exact same charges against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge him for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his legal team said it plans to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that because the charge is invalid, the time limit has expired and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and need Senate approval. US laws regulate how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

The ruling also could raise doubts on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

But Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special US attorney and praised her work as outstanding.

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