🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile opponents of former President Trump secured significant court wins on Monday when a US judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges 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 former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

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

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

But the DOJ confronts significant hurdles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice 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 indicated she would pursue this option, pledging to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to convene fresh 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 get a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

But John Day, head 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 recharged 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 simple answers.

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it intends to argue the prosecution is out of time.

The ruling also suggests 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 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 install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

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

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and require US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

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

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

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