🔗 Share this article

Two well-known opponents of former President Trump achieved major legal victories on Monday when a federal judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses 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 accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes the former president is likely to come after him again.

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

But the government faces significant obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the DOJ appeal?

The DOJ can challenge Judge Currie's ruling before a higher appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, pledging to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to assemble new 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 Professor Levine.

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

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a legal quagmire 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 legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict him for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

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

The decision further indicates that because the charge is void, the time limit has expired and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these laws.

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

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

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

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