🔗 Share this article

Two well-known opponents of President Trump obtained significant legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

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

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks the former president is likely to 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 hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets 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 indictments.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could bring James' case to a new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, said Ms Levine.

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

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

It could be harder for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against James Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

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

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

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

The ruling also could raise doubts on any 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 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.