🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of President Trump obtained significant court wins on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

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

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the last chapter on this issue.

But the government confronts significant obstacles to effectively try either after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ appeal?

The DOJ can challenge Judge Currie's ruling before a federal appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would pursue this option, vowing to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

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 attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement 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 entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), 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 secure a new indictment, said Professor Levine.

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

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

He described the complex web of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict him for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his legal team said it plans to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against James and Comey, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to install Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and need Senate approval. US laws govern how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

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

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

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