🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of former President Trump achieved significant court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

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

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the government confronts steep obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ appeal?

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 signaled she would pursue this option, pledging 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 petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

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

Could there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

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

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to convene new grand juries and obtain new indictments.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could bring James' case to a new grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said 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.

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

He described the tangle of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge him for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

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

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has run 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 indictments against James and Comey, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

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

US attorneys are proposed by the president and need Senate approval. US laws regulate how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

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

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

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