🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of President Trump secured significant legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president is likely to target him again.

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

But the DOJ confronts steep hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

The government charged Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to assemble new grand juries and secure new indictments.

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

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

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 identical accusations against Comey.

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

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

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is invalid, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the AG's effort to install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and need Senate approval. US laws govern how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

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

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

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.