🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of former President Trump secured significant court wins on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

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

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the final word on this issue.

But the government confronts significant hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can challenge the judge's decision before a federal 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 available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

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

Could there be new charges?

The government accused Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the complex web of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It could be harder for the government to try to bring the exact same charges against Comey.

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

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

The ruling also suggests that because the charge is invalid, the statute of limitations 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 indictments against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: 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 Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

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

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

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

But Bondi said on that day 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 the press on Monday.