🔗 Share this article

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

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, stating he thinks the former president is likely to come after him again.

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

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

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the DOJ appeal?

The DOJ can challenge the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

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

If there is an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene new grand juries and obtain new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

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

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

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

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it plans to argue the prosecution is out of time.

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is void, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against Comey and James, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

The judge stated in the James ruling that the AG's effort to install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

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

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

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