🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent opponents of President Trump achieved significant 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 argued fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks the former president will probably target him once more.

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

But the government faces steep hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can challenge the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, vowing to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any further 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.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government charged James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed 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 new 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 Professor Levine.

But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in the Comey matter.

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

He described the tangle of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It might be harder for the DOJ to try to file the exact same charges against James Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it intends to contend the government is out of time.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to file the charges, she wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

The ruling also could cast a shadow on other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she designated her a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

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