🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of President Trump achieved major legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

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

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, stating he believes Trump will probably come after him once more.

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

But the government faces significant obstacles to effectively try either after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, vowing to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments 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 involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

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

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new charges.

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

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He described the complex web of lawyers, judges, and legal filings 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.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict him for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to argue the government is out of time.

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against James and Comey, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

The judge stated in the James ruling that the AG's effort to install Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

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

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

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

The decision might also raise doubts on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she made Halligan a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as excellent.

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