🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile opponents of President Trump obtained significant legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, stating he thinks the former president will probably 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 confronts steep hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and experts hesitate 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.

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would take this route, pledging to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

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

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a different 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 – especially in Comey's case.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

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

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against James and Comey, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as excellent.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.