🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of former President Trump achieved major legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases 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 acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, saying he believes Trump will probably target him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this issue.

But the DOJ faces steep obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, pledging to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

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

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government charged Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Professor Levine.

But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially in Comey's case.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

He described the tangle of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It might be harder for the government to try to file the exact same charges against Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

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

The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said 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 was wrongly appointed.

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

As a result, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and require Senate approval. US laws govern how individuals 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 both individuals, once more, unclear.

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she made her a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as outstanding.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.