🔗 Share this article

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

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, saying he believes Trump will probably target him once more.

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

But the DOJ faces steep hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, 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.

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

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

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

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

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

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

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

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that because the charge is void, the time limit has expired and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against James and Comey, the judge 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 Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

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

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

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, 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 Monday that she designated her a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as excellent.

The administration maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.