🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent critics of President Trump obtained major court wins on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks the former president is likely to come after him again.

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

But the government faces steep hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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 indictments.

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

But John Day, president 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 recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He described the complex web of attorneys, courts, 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 James Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict him for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it intends to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests 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 Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

The judge stated in the James decision that the AG's effort to install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

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

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

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she made her a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as outstanding.

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