🔗 Share this article

Two prominent critics of President Trump obtained significant legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

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

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, saying he believes Trump will probably come after him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the last chapter on this matter.

But the DOJ faces significant hurdles to effectively try either after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could happen 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 DOJ challenge the ruling?

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.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, vowing to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

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

In the event of an appeals process, the justice department probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government charged James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

But legal expert John Day, president 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 lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, 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.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so 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 void, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

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

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she made Halligan a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as excellent.

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