🔗 Share this article

Two prominent critics of President Trump achieved significant legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, saying he believes the former president will probably come after him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the last chapter on this issue.

But the government confronts significant obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ 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.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, pledging to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

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

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

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government accused James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted 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 secure a new indictment, said Ms Levine.

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

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the complex web of attorneys, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It might be more difficult for the government to try to file the exact same charges against Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it intends to argue the government is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is void, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no further indictment, attorney 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, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the AG's effort to install Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

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

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and need Senate approval. US laws regulate how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

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

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

The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.