🔗 Share this article

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

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for retaliation.

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

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks Trump will probably target him again.

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

But the DOJ confronts significant hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

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

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

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government accused Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

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

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

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

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

It's clear that 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 described the tangle of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It might be harder for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict him for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to argue the prosecution is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. 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 US president and need Senate approval. US laws govern how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these laws.

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

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

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

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.