🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of former President Trump secured major court wins on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for revenge.

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

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, saying he thinks the former president will probably target him once more.

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

But the DOJ confronts steep obstacles to effectively try both after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they 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 assemble fresh grand juries and secure new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor 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 the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

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

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict him for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it plans to contend the prosecution is out of time.

The decision further indicates 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 is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against James and Comey, the judge was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

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

This makes Halligan's role 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 that day that she made Halligan a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as outstanding.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.