🔗 Share this article

Two well-known critics of former President Trump achieved major court wins on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, saying he believes the former president is likely to target him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: 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 unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the justice department appeal?

The DOJ 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, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

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

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

Each pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

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

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It could be harder for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict him for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his legal team said it intends to contend the government is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that because the charge is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, she wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

The ruling also could raise doubts on other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

But Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.