🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile opponents of former President Trump achieved major legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the government's charges 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 innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for revenge.

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

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, stating he believes Trump is likely to target 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 successfully prosecute either after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

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

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

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed 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 charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different 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.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an charge.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, judges, and motions 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 James Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict him for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

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

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the AG's effort to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

The decision might also cast a shadow on any other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

But Bondi said on that day that she made her a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as outstanding.

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.