🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of President Trump secured major court wins on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she 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 former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, saying he thinks Trump is likely to come after him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the last chapter on this issue.

But the DOJ confronts significant obstacles to effectively try both after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the justice department appeal?

The Department of Justice can contest Judge Currie's ruling before a higher appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating 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 DOJ probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

The government accused James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to convene new grand juries and obtain new indictments.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could present James's case to a new grand jury and get a new indictment, said Professor Levine.

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

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it intends to argue the prosecution is out of time.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to file the charges, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she made Halligan a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as excellent.

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