🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of former President Trump achieved significant legal victories on Monday when a US 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 maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for retaliation.

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

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, saying he thinks the former president is likely to target him again.

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

But the DOJ confronts steep obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department appeal?

The Department of Justice can contest Judge Currie's ruling before a higher appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

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

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any additional 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 involvement in the appeal unclear.

Could there be new charges?

The government charged Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both entered not guilty pleas. 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 DOJ might try to convene new grand juries and secure new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a new grand jury and get a new indictment, said 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 lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It might be more difficult for the DOJ to try to bring the exact same charges against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it plans to argue the prosecution is out of time.

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

As a result, she lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

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

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

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

But Bondi said on Monday 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 reporters on Monday.