🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of former President Trump obtained significant legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the government to try again.

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

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, saying he thinks Trump is likely to target him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the last chapter on this matter.

But the government faces significant hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can contest Judge Currie's ruling 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, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

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

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

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

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government accused James Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

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

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

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a new grand jury and secure a new indictment, stated Professor Levine.

But legal expert John Day, head 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 strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

He described the complex web of lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It might be harder for the government to try to bring the exact same charges against James Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

As a result, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the president and require Senate approval. US laws regulate how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, 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 Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as outstanding.

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