🔗 Share this article

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

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Court throws out cases 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 charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes Trump will probably target him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the last chapter on this matter.

But the government faces steep hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

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

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

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor 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 complicated path – certainly in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

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

It might be more difficult for the DOJ to try to bring the identical accusations 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. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments 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 install Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

Therefore, she lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she made her a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as outstanding.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.