🔗 Share this article

Two prominent opponents of President Trump obtained major court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

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

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, stating he believes the former president is likely to target him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this issue.

But the government faces steep obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

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

Could there be new charges?

The government accused Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government 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 fresh indictment, stated Professor 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 strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

Still in that case, his legal team said it intends to contend the prosecution is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is void, the time limit has expired and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said 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 decision that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

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

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

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

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

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

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