🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of former President Trump obtained major legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, saying he believes the former president is likely to target him once more.

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

But the government confronts significant hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the DOJ appeal?

The DOJ can challenge 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, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure a new indictment, said 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 recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is able to secure an charge.

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

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to contend the prosecution is out of time.

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, she wrote.

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

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

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

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

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