🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile opponents of President Trump achieved major legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks Trump will probably target him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.

But the government faces significant obstacles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the DOJ appeal?

The DOJ can contest 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 pursue this option, pledging to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeals process, 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 fresh indictments?

The government charged Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged 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, both also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a different grand jury and get a new indictment, said Professor Levine.

But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

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

It might be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the exact same charges against Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey 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 bring the case again.

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

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

As a result, she lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the president and need Senate approval. US laws regulate how people can be assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

The ruling also could cast a shadow on any other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

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

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