🔗 Share this article

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

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for retaliation.

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

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, stating he believes Trump is likely to come after him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the last chapter on this issue.

But the government faces steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, 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, law professor at Emory University.

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice 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, pledging to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.

Could there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new grand jury and get a fresh 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.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It could be more difficult for the government to try to bring the exact same charges against James Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it plans to contend the government is out of time.

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against James and Comey, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

As a result, she lacked legal power to present the indictment, she wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she made Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

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