🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of former President Trump achieved major legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes the former president will probably come after him once more.

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

But the government confronts significant hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department 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 indicated she would take this route, pledging to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

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

If there is an appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Professor Levine.

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

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

He described the tangle of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

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 deadline that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close 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 legal team said it intends to contend the prosecution is out of time.

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

US attorneys are proposed by the president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

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

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day 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.