🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of President Trump secured significant court wins on Monday when a US judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment 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 NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

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

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

But the government confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the DOJ appeal?

The DOJ can contest Judge Currie's ruling before a higher 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 expedited appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

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

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

He described the complex web of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It could be harder for the government to try to file the exact same charges against James Comey.

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

Still in that case, his legal team said it plans to contend the government is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is invalid, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to install Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

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

The ruling also could raise doubts on other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

But Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.