🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known opponents of President Trump achieved significant legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

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

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.

But the DOJ faces steep obstacles to effectively try both after this defeat, and experts 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, law professor at Emory University.

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

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

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government accused James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed 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 convene fresh grand juries and secure new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new grand jury and get a new indictment, stated 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.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

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

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

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

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how people 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 future cases against James and Comey, once more, unclear.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as outstanding.

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