🔗 Share this article

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

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, stating he believes Trump will probably target him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the DOJ confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could occur 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 DOJ challenge the ruling?

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.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would pursue this option, vowing to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

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

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to assemble new grand juries and obtain new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

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

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

He described the tangle of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the exact same charges against Comey.

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

Even so in that case, his legal team said it intends 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, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

The judge stated in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

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

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

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

The decision might also raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

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

The administration maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.