🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of President Trump achieved significant legal victories on Monday when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes Trump will probably target him once more.

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

But the government faces steep obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

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

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

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

But legal expert 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 Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

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

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

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

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to argue the government is out of time.

The decision further indicates that because the indictment is invalid, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated 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.

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

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these laws.

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

The decision might also cast a shadow 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 designated Halligan a special US attorney and praised her work as outstanding.

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