🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of President Trump obtained major court wins on Monday when a federal judge threw out the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the government to try again.

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

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president will probably come after him again.

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

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

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal 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 indicted James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to convene new grand juries and secure new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It might be harder 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 prosecutors had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

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 indictment is invalid, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

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

But Bondi said on that day that she designated her a special US attorney and praised her work as outstanding.

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.