🔗 Share this article

Two prominent critics of former President Trump obtained significant legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for retaliation.

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

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, stating he believes Trump is likely to come after him once more.

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

But the DOJ confronts steep hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, pledging to use all legal means, including an expedited 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 continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Professor Levine.

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He described the complex web of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

The decision further indicates that since the charge is void, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against James and Comey, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how people can be assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

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

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

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