🔗 Share this article

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

Over recent weeks following their charges, 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 simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, stating he thinks Trump is likely to come after him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the government confronts steep hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the justice department 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.

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

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

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

If there is an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides 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 government might try to assemble new grand juries and obtain new indictments.

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

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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 deadline that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it plans to argue the government is out of time.

The decision further indicates that since the charge is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the AG's effort to appoint Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

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

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

The decision might also raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

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