🔗 Share this article

Two well-known opponents of President Trump achieved major legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president will probably come after him once more.

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

But the DOJ faces significant obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the justice department appeal?

The DOJ can challenge 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 immediate appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

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

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government accused James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both 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 convene new grand juries and obtain new charges.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and get a new indictment, said Ms Levine.

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

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

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

It could be harder for the government 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. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of 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 Attorney General's attempt to appoint 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.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how people can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan 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.