🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent critics of President Trump achieved major legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the government's charges against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for retaliation.

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

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, stating he thinks Trump is likely to target him again.

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

But the government faces steep obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might 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 immediate appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government accused Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a new grand jury and secure a new indictment, said Ms Levine.

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

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

He described the complex web of attorneys, judges, 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.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it intends to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is void, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against James and Comey, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

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

US attorneys are proposed by the president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she designated her a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as excellent.

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