🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile opponents of President Trump secured significant court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge threw out 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 argued fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

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

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president will probably come after him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the government confronts steep hurdles 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 justice department appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

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

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

Could there be new charges?

The government accused James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to convene new grand juries and secure new indictments.

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

But legal expert John Day, head 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 strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the complex web of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It could be harder for the government to try to file the exact same charges against Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

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

The ruling also suggests that because the charge is void, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the AG's effort to install Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

Therefore, she lacked legal power to present the indictment, she wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

The decision might also raise doubts on other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

But Bondi said on Monday that she made Halligan a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.

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