🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of former President Trump achieved significant legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, saying he believes the former president will probably target him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the government confronts steep obstacles to effectively try either after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could occur 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 DOJ 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 Court of Appeals.

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

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to assemble fresh 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 new indictment, stated Ms Levine.

But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially in Comey's case.

It's clear that 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 charge.

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

It might be harder for the DOJ to try to bring the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

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

The ruling also suggests 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 Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

US attorneys are proposed by the president and require Senate approval. US laws regulate how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.

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