🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of former President Trump secured major legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for revenge.

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

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, stating he thinks Trump is likely to target him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this issue.

But the government confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, 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 Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the DOJ appeal?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, pledging to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Could there be new charges?

The government charged Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

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

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and get a new indictment, stated Ms Levine.

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

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

He described the complex web of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It could be harder for the DOJ to try to file the exact same charges against Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict him for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to argue the government is out of time.

The decision further indicates that because the charge is void, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

The judge stated in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment 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 any other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

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

The administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.