🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of former President Trump achieved major legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for retaliation.

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

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

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 will not be the final word on this issue.

But the DOJ confronts significant hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, said Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can challenge Judge Currie's ruling before a federal 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, vowing to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government accused James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' 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 Comey's case.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the complex web of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It might be more difficult for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against James Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end 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 legal team said it intends to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that because the charge is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

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

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

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