🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of former President Trump secured major court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, saying he thinks the former president is likely to target him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this issue.

But the DOJ confronts significant obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen 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 Court of Appeals.

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, pledging to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking 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 all legal avenues.

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

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government charged James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), 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 new grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, stated Professor Levine.

But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in Comey's case.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

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

It might be more difficult for the government to try to file the exact same charges against Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it plans to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

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

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

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

The ruling also could raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

But Bondi said on that day that she made her a special US attorney and praised her work as outstanding.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.