🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile critics of former President Trump achieved major legal victories on Monday when a federal 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 maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

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 appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the DOJ faces significant hurdles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

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

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

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed 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 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 complicated path – especially in Comey's case.

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict him for these particular claims – 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 past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is void, the time limit has expired and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against James and Comey, the judge was blunt: 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 Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority 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 assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

The ruling also could raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

But Bondi said on that day that she designated her a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as excellent.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.