🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of President Trump achieved significant legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for revenge.

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

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, saying he believes Trump is likely to come after him once more.

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

But the DOJ faces steep obstacles to effectively try 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, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the DOJ appeal?

The Department of Justice can contest the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this case, 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.

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to assemble new grand juries and obtain new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney 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 complex process – especially in Comey's case.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It might be more difficult for the DOJ to try to bring the exact same charges against James Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it intends to argue the prosecution is out of time.

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against Comey and James, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

Therefore, she lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and require US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.

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

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

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

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