🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of President Trump secured major court wins on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director 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 merely singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

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

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, saying he thinks Trump is likely to target him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.

But the DOJ confronts significant obstacles to effectively try both after this defeat, and experts hesitate 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 challenge the ruling?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

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

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to convene new grand juries and obtain new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different 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 complex process – 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 assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

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

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his legal team said it intends to contend the prosecution is out of time.

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the AG's effort to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

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

US attorneys are nominated by the president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.