🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of former President Trump obtained significant court wins on Monday when a federal judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the government to try again.

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

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, saying he believes Trump is likely to come after him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the final word on this issue.

But the government faces significant hurdles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government charged James Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Ms Levine.

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

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

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

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict him for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it plans to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that because the charge is invalid, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no new 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.

The judge stated in the James decision that the AG's effort to install Halligan as Interim 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 require Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

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

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

The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.