🔗 Share this article

Two prominent critics of former President Trump secured significant legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, stating he thinks Trump will probably target him once more.

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

But the government confronts significant hurdles to effectively try either after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the DOJ appeal?

The Department of Justice can contest the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, pledging to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US 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 appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government accused Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and secure new indictments.

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

But legal expert 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 strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – 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 trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it plans to contend the prosecution is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that because the charge is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

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

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

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

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 that day that she made her a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as excellent.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.