🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile critics of former President Trump obtained major court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

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

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the final word on this issue.

But the DOJ faces steep obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the DOJ appeal?

The Department of Justice can challenge the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any additional 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 new charges?

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

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to convene 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, said Ms Levine.

But John Day, head 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 Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

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

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to contend the government is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that since the charge is void, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the AG's effort to install Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

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

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as outstanding.

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