🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile opponents of former President Trump secured significant court wins on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

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

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.

But the DOJ confronts significant hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to predict 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.

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can contest Judge Currie's ruling before a federal appeals court. In this case, 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.

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, said Professor Levine.

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in Comey's case.

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

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It could be harder for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these specific allegations – which expired 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 plans to argue the government is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is invalid, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to install Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to file the charges, she wrote.

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

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

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

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

The administration maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.