🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of former President Trump secured major court wins on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, stating he believes Trump will probably target him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this issue.

But the DOJ confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, pledging to use all available legal action, 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 Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to assemble new grand juries and obtain new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could bring James' case to a new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

But legal expert 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 strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

He described the tangle of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It could be harder for the DOJ to try to bring the exact same charges against James Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

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

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the AG's effort to appoint Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

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

US attorneys are nominated by the president and need Senate approval. US laws govern how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

The ruling also could raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

But 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, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.