🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of President Trump obtained major court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president will probably target him again.

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

But the DOJ confronts significant obstacles to effectively try 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 unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would pursue this option, pledging to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a different grand jury and get a fresh indictment, said Professor Levine.

But 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 lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

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

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

Still in that case, his legal team said it intends to argue the government is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that because 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 prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against James and Comey, the judge was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

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

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

The decision might also raise doubts on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

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

The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.