🔗 Share this article

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

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, stating he believes the former president will probably target him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the last chapter on this issue.

But the government confronts significant obstacles to effectively try both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the justice department appeal?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

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

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.

Could there be new charges?

The government accused James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new grand jury and get a new indictment, stated Professor Levine.

But 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 hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the complex web of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It might be harder for the DOJ to try to file the exact same charges against James Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is void, the time limit has expired and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

As a result, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

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

The decision might also cast a shadow on any other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

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

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