🔗 Share this article

Two prominent critics of former President Trump achieved major court wins on Monday when a US judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for retaliation.

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

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, saying he thinks Trump will probably come after him again.

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

But the government confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

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

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

The government accused Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted 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 convene fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure a new indictment, stated Ms Levine.

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

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

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

Still in that case, his legal team said it plans to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

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

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and praised her work as outstanding.

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