🔗 Share this article

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

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for retaliation.

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

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks Trump will probably come after him again.

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

But the DOJ confronts significant obstacles to effectively try both after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department appeal?

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

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

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

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

If there is an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

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

But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially in the Comey matter.

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

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict him for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

Still in that case, his legal team said it plans to contend the government is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

The judge stated 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.

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

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

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

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

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.