🔗 Share this article

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

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, saying he believes 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 issue.

But the DOJ confronts steep hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ appeal?

The DOJ can challenge Judge Currie's ruling before a federal appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

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

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

Could there be new charges?

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

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

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

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

He described the complex web of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the close 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 situation, his lawyers said it plans to argue the government is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that because the charge is void, the time limit has expired and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against James and Comey, the judge was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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 unlawful.

As a result, she lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

The ruling also could cast a shadow on any other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

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

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