🔗 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 against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, stating he believes the former president will probably come after him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this issue.

But the DOJ confronts significant hurdles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Professor 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 Appeals Court.

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government accused James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to assemble new grand juries and secure new charges.

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

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the complex web of lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it intends to argue the government is past the deadline.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

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

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how people can be assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special US attorney and praised her work as outstanding.

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.