🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of President Trump secured major court wins on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the government to refile the case.

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

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, saying he thinks Trump will probably target him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this issue.

But the government confronts steep hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Could the justice department appeal?

The Department of Justice can contest Judge Currie's ruling before a higher appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

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

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

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to assemble fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

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

But legal expert John Day, president 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 Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the complex web of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it plans to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that because the charge is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

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

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, once more, unclear.

The ruling also could raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

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

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