🔗 Share this article

Two prominent opponents of President Trump achieved major court wins on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the government's charges filed 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 president and justice department are simply singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, stating he believes Trump will probably target him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the final word on this issue.

But the government confronts steep hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would take this route, vowing to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, stated 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 able to secure an charge.

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

It might be harder for the DOJ to try to file the exact same charges against James Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict him for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it plans to argue the prosecution is out of time.

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

As a result, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how people can be appointed on a interim 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 prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

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

The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.