A pair of high-profile opponents of President Trump secured major court wins on Monday when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments against them.
Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.
US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the government to refile the case.
- Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
- Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
- What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?
Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president will probably come after him once more.
And White House spokeswoman 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 both after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.
It feels to me like uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.
Could the justice department challenge the ruling?
The DOJ can challenge the judge's decision before a higher appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
US Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would take this route, pledging to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.
In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.
Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.
In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.
Is it possible there be fresh indictments?
The government charged Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.
Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.
Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and obtain new charges.
Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new grand jury and get a new indictment, stated Ms Levine.
But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in Comey's case.
It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an charge.
He described the complex web of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.
It might be more difficult for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against Comey.
A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.
Even so in that situation, his legal team said it plans to contend the government is out of time.
The decision further indicates that because the charge is void, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.
What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?
In the pair of rulings on the charges against James and Comey, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.
The judge stated in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.
As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to file the charges, she wrote.
US attorneys are proposed by the US president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.
That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, once more, unclear.
The ruling also could raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.
But Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.
The administration maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.
