🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile opponents of President Trump obtained major legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

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

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president will probably target him again.

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

But the DOJ confronts significant obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

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

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government charged Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

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

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to convene new grand juries and secure new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure a new indictment, said 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.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

He described the tangle of lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It might be harder for the government to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge him for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

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

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, once more, unclear.

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

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

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