🔗 Share this article

Two well-known opponents of former President Trump secured significant legal victories on Monday when a federal judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment 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 NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, stating he thinks Trump will probably come after him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the final word on this issue.

But the government confronts steep obstacles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

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

If there is an appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

The government charged James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

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

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to assemble new grand juries and secure new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a new grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Ms Levine.

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially 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 assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

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 DOJ to try to file the exact same charges against James Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that since the charge 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, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, she wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, once more, unclear.

The decision might also cast a shadow 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 her a special federal prosecutor 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.