🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of former President Trump secured significant court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, stating he believes the former president is likely to come after him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this issue.

But the government confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure 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.

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

He described the tangle of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It might be harder for the government to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict him for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

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

The ruling also suggests that because the charge is invalid, the time limit has expired 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 charges against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

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

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

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

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