🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of former President Trump obtained major court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

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

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks Trump is likely to target him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.

But the DOJ confronts steep obstacles to effectively try either after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department appeal?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, 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 accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

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

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new charges.

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

But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in Comey's case.

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an charge.

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to bring the identical accusations against James Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it plans to argue the government is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is invalid, 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 Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

The judge stated in the James decision that the AG's effort to appoint Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

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

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

The decision might also cast a shadow on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

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

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