🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of former President Trump obtained major legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks Trump will probably target him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the last chapter on this issue.

But the DOJ confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can challenge the judge's decision before a higher 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 available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

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

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

In the event of an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new grand jury and get a new indictment, said Ms 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 hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

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

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors 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 justice department to bring the case again.

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

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is void, the time limit has expired and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

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

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

The ruling also could 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 designated 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.