🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile opponents of President Trump secured major legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

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

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

But the government faces steep hurdles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would take this route, vowing to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to convene fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

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

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

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is able to secure an charge.

He characterized the complex web of lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it intends to argue the government is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is void, 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 both decisions on the charges against James and Comey, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

The judge stated in the James decision 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 present the indictment, she wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.

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

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

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

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