🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of President Trump achieved significant legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the government's charges filed 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 innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the government to refile the case.

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

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, stating he believes the former president is likely to target him again.

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

But the government faces significant obstacles to effectively try both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

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

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

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

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

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government 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 different grand jury and get a new indictment, said Ms Levine.

But legal expert John Day, head 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 hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

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

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey 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 justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it plans to contend the prosecution 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, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against James and Comey, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

As a result, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, once more, unclear.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as excellent.

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