🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile critics of former President Trump obtained significant court wins on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, saying he believes Trump is likely to 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 significant hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the justice department appeal?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would take this route, vowing to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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 indictments.

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

But legal expert John Day, head 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 hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

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

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

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

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

The judge stated in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she designated Halligan a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as excellent.

The administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.