🔗 Share this article

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

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, stating he believes Trump is likely to come after him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the last chapter on this issue.

But the government confronts steep hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the justice department appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

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

Could there be new charges?

The government charged Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to convene fresh grand juries and secure new indictments.

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

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

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

He described the tangle of lawyers, judges, and legal filings 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 James Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it plans to argue the prosecution is out of time.

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

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

US attorneys are proposed by the president and need Senate approval. US laws regulate how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these laws.

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

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she made Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.