🔗 Share this article

Two well-known critics of former President Trump obtained significant court wins on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

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

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, stating he thinks the former president will probably target him again.

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

But the government faces significant obstacles to effectively try both after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Could 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 Appeals Court.

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

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

The government charged James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

But John Day, president 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 Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the complex web of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It might be harder for the DOJ to try to file the exact same charges against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his legal team said it plans to contend the prosecution is out of time.

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is void, the statute of limitations 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 blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

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

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

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