🔗 Share this article

Two well-known opponents of President Trump achieved significant legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed 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 fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the government to try again.

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

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks the former president will probably target him again.

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

But the DOJ confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and experts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the justice department appeal?

The Department of Justice can contest the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

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

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government accused Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with bank 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 vindictive prosecution.

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

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and get a new 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.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the tangle of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

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

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against James and Comey, 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 Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

As a result, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

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

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

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

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