🔗 Share this article

Two well-known opponents of President Trump obtained major court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, stating he believes Trump is likely to come after him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.

But the DOJ confronts steep hurdles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the justice department appeal?

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 signaled she would take this route, pledging to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

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

Attorney 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 justice department probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

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

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an charge.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict him for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it plans to contend the government is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that because the indictment is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney 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 was wrongly appointed.

The judge stated in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to install Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the president and require Senate approval. US laws govern how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

The decision might also cast a shadow on any other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

But Bondi said on Monday that she made Halligan a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as excellent.

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