🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of former President Trump obtained significant court wins on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, stating he believes the former president 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 issue.

But the DOJ faces significant hurdles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

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

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

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

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

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to assemble new grand juries and secure new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a different grand jury and get a fresh indictment, said Professor Levine.

But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially in Comey's case.

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

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

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it plans to argue the government is out of time.

The decision further indicates that because the indictment is invalid, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the AG's effort to install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

As a result, she lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and require Senate approval. US laws regulate how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

The ruling also could raise doubts on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as outstanding.

The administration maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.