🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile opponents of former President Trump achieved significant court wins on Monday 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 insisted fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, saying he believes the former president will probably target him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the final word on this issue.

But the government confronts significant hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, stated Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US 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 lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government charged James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

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

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to assemble new grand juries and obtain 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 legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in the Comey matter.

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

He described the complex web of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

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 deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, 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 plans to contend the prosecution is out of time.

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

US attorneys are nominated by the president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these laws.

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

The ruling also could raise doubts on other cases Halligan has brought 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 administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.