🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile opponents of former President Trump achieved significant court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, stating he believes the former president will probably come after him again.

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

But the DOJ faces steep hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would pursue this option, pledging to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

The government accused James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially in Comey's case.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

He described the tangle of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against James Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

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

The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is void, 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 was wrongly appointed.

The judge stated in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

Therefore, she lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached 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 serves.

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

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