🔗 Share this article

Two prominent opponents of President Trump achieved major court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief 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 admitted that likelihood after the decision, saying he thinks Trump will probably target 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 DOJ faces steep obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

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

If there is an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

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

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the tangle of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is invalid, the statute of limitations has run 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 Comey and James, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

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

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these laws.

That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as excellent.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.