🔗 Share this article

Two prominent critics of former President Trump secured significant court wins on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are innocent, 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 improper appointment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, saying he thinks the former president will probably target him once more.

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

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

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, stated Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

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.

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

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

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

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 unclear.

Could there be new charges?

The government charged Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

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

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to convene fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Professor Levine.

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

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He described the complex web of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

Still in that situation, his legal team said it plans to argue the prosecution is out of time.

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and need Senate approval. US laws govern how people can be assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

The decision might also raise doubts on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as outstanding.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.