🔗 Share this article

Two prominent critics of former President Trump achieved major court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes Trump is likely to target him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the final word on this issue.

But the DOJ confronts steep obstacles to effectively try either after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the justice department appeal?

The DOJ can contest the judge's decision before a federal 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, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

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

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government charged James Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different grand jury and get a new indictment, stated Professor Levine.

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

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

It might be more difficult for the government to try to file the identical accusations against James Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which expired 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.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it plans to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

US attorneys are nominated by the president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated Halligan a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as outstanding.

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