🔗 Share this article

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

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, saying he believes Trump is likely to come after him once more.

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

But the DOJ faces significant obstacles to effectively try either after this setback, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can challenge the judge's decision before a higher appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated 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 unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

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

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

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

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

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially in Comey's case.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to bring the identical accusations against James Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it intends to argue the government is out of time.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against James and Comey, the judge was direct: 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 unlawful.

Therefore, she lacked legal power to present the indictment, she wrote.

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

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

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special federal prosecutor 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.